WHY THEM  Has reviewed this kind of change before.

“it was commented before? why do we not resolve this now? this issue will never be done if we don't do it now in my opinion”

WHY THEM  Writes about code protectiveness and consistency enforcement in their own reviews.

“I think we have a phone validation method in guardian. it should be the same. check update phone number resolver”

WHY THEM  Writes about collaborative engagement style in their own reviews.

“The constraints I care about as an app author: - When I give a cache lifetime to the child, do I have a *guarantee* it will update at least as often? Even if that forces everything above to invalidate? - Or does the outer scope "win" and outer scope can "freeze" inner scopes that would've liked to revalidate more often? - When I want to avoid this conflict, how do I break out of it? (I assume via the `children` composition trick instead of nested scopes?) It would be good to write this part from this perspective. The concerns that need to be addressed is (1) is my stuff ever going to be more stale than locally expected, (2) is my stuff going to revalidate more often than locally expected, (3) how to resolve conflicts between expectations if there's a clear "hole" that can be cut.”

WHY THEM  Writes about code protectiveness and consistency in their own reviews.

“I think that the DTOs should be implemented in `libs` and (if necessary) imported into `apps` But most of the time you don't event need DTOs in `apps` because you will simply call the query and return a corresponding graphql output (Currently we use `CustomObjectMapper.toDTO` in the resolver files but similarly, I think it should be used in `libs` instead)”

WHY THEM  Writes about problem description style in their own reviews.