WHY THEM Has reviewed this kind of change before.
“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 problem description style in their own reviews.
“This is the first cleanup step. A deeper refactor will come in a next PR. Context is big, and rewriting all identity usages in one go would make the PR massive it’s already quite heavy with just these minimal changes”
WHY THEM Has reviewed this kind of change before.
“why you refactor this part like this? by the way no acronym is better, I think you want to use queryBuilder not other people.”
WHY THEM Has reviewed this kind of change before.
“Hmm. Now we have two entries with the exact same text for vendor/model. It's not obvious in the diff, because the previous entry is about ten lines earlier. It might work, but I'm not super-happy about that kind of ambiguity. There's no way for a person to actually pick one over the other by name - and that's how people pick these things. Vendor and model name is basically the index into this descriptor array, and indexes should be unique. No? So i think that "i200C" string should be "i200Cv2" or something. That said, I suspect it ends up working in practice, with then the atom2_parser code just doing the right thing because it sees the I200CV2 model number and parses things ok in the end. Hmm?”
WHY THEM Writes about specificity vs summary in their own reviews.