WHY THEM Writes about code protectiveness and openness to refactoring in their own reviews.
“This is confusing. You need to walk through these stages: - Passing a ref to `<input>` - Creating your own component — it doesn't work anymore - Fixing it by spreading props Spreading props isn't a default thing people would reach for. The paragraph above doesn't match the code below because the code below introduces spreading.”
WHY THEM Writes about small prs, real descriptions, cursor assisted summaries in their own reviews.
“can you add it to the right issue / PR please, this way we will be able to track it and test it This part is critical, it implies a different scope, not only the platform squad and need some non regression tests Thanks 🙏”
WHY THEM Writes about code protectiveness and consistency enforcement in their own reviews.
“Having the arrange logic inside each describe (afterEach and beforeEach) gives clearer context for the assertions below. It keeps tests self-contained and easier to read without jumping around the file. If we hoist setup to the top, switching context becomes harder. Keeping it per describe feels more natural and scalable. Happy to align if you feel strongly though!”
WHY THEM Has reviewed this kind of change before.
“Is it possible to add some tests for the mapper ?”
WHY THEM Writes about specificity vs summary in their own reviews.
“global work on the unit tests to be done.”