The Nitpicker's Gambit: The reviewer fixates on trivial style issues like whitespace, bracket placement, variable naming conventions etc. They make the developer conform perfectly to their preferred style, even if it's not specified in the team's coding guidelines.
The Silent Treatment: The reviewer provides no feedback at all for a long time after the review is requested, but does respond just often enough to keep the review "active". The author has to ping several times to get any response.
The Tunnel Vision: The reviewer only looks at the specific lines changed, without considering the broader context of the code. They suggest changes that are locally valid but deliberately inconsistent with the overall design or architecture.
The Ad Hominem: The reviewer makes snarky comments about the code in a way that implies the author is inexperienced and/or incompetent without directly saying so (and opening themselves to accusations of meanness).
The Philosophical Debate: The reviewer gets into a long back-and-forth debate in the review comments about a matter of opinion like whether inheritance or composition is better. The actual issue at hand gets lost in the abstract discussion.
> The Nitpicker's Gambit: The reviewer fixates on trivial style issues like whitespace, bracket placement, variable naming conventions etc. They make the developer conform perfectly to their preferred style, even if it's not specified in the team's coding guidelines.
Mostly solved by autoformatters. If your team refuses to use one, start collecting metrics on time wasted in those discussions, and present to management.
> The Silent Treatment: The reviewer provides no feedback at all for a long time after the review is requested, but does respond just often enough to keep the review "active". The author has to ping several times to get any response.
Set a policy of auto-approve in N days if no engagement.
The Nitpicker's Gambit: The reviewer fixates on trivial style issues like whitespace, bracket placement, variable naming conventions etc. They make the developer conform perfectly to their preferred style, even if it's not specified in the team's coding guidelines.
The Silent Treatment: The reviewer provides no feedback at all for a long time after the review is requested, but does respond just often enough to keep the review "active". The author has to ping several times to get any response.
The Tunnel Vision: The reviewer only looks at the specific lines changed, without considering the broader context of the code. They suggest changes that are locally valid but deliberately inconsistent with the overall design or architecture.
The Ad Hominem: The reviewer makes snarky comments about the code in a way that implies the author is inexperienced and/or incompetent without directly saying so (and opening themselves to accusations of meanness).
The Philosophical Debate: The reviewer gets into a long back-and-forth debate in the review comments about a matter of opinion like whether inheritance or composition is better. The actual issue at hand gets lost in the abstract discussion.