Code review is a request for my willpower ¶

Code review is a big task for even a tiny change. But if your patch is enormous and tricky, then you’re asking for a titanic share of my willpower.

When a review demands too much of my daily willpower reserve, I have a few options:

• Lawful Good: Carve out time when I know I’ll be able to power through the review.
• Neutral: Defer reviewing your code — and devoutly wish that it somehow disappears.
• Chaotic Evil: YOLO it into production and let you deal with the fallout.

None of these options is fair to both the developer and the reviewer.

Where to even begin code review ¶

Often even the basic questions of code review are up to a reviewer to decide.

A thread on hacker news recently asked a fundamental question about code review: do you run the code as part of your review? The immediate responses were illuminating to me, and I can summarize them as follows:

1. No, but here’s how I trick developers into running their own code
2. Yes, because neglecting to run code has left me traumatized
3. Rarely, because tests
4. It depends, and you need a standard

Google’s code review guidelines are blasé on the subject:

You can validate the CL [code under review] if you want

– What to look for in a code review, https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/

Google’s engineering practices documentation goes on to mention times you’ll definitely want to ensure you’ve run the code: UI changes and parallelism — places where it’s easy (even likely) for an individual to make a noticeable (in retrospect) mistake. But what about all the other code reviews?

Requesting changes to the code review process ¶

We should optimize the code review process to reduce the decision fatigue of reviewers.

Here are a few tricks developers can use to lessen the mental load:

• Split your merge request into smaller, independent merge requests
• Add some tests and linting to exercise the code
• Write clearer commit messages
• Add comments to the code
• Ask them for a narrower review — e.g., a design review or an architecture review
• Write better code

Some tools exist that ease the burden of remembering your review backlog – Automattic has The Stick, and Microsoft has Nudge. And studies have shown code review reminder tools like these may speed up reviews by as much as 60%.

But there are no magic bullets. Code review’s harshest feedback is silence. There are times when you gape as your code rots, awaiting final judgement. And that sucks for everyone.

To speed up the process, we’ve got to make it easier for reviewers – we should start with a shared agreement about the scope of review. Perhaps beginning with the fundamental question of whether they’re even supposed to run the code. The answer here is probably different for different teams and various types of software, but we all do reviews; maybe we should all have review standards, too.

Thanks to Brennen Bearnes for reading an early draft of this post and making it less wronger.

🎭 The Tragedy of the Logitech Squeezebox ¶

The Logitech Squeezebox is a bygone streaming device that was too beautiful for this world. Logitech snuffed the Squeezebox in 2012.

But because others share my enthusiasm for Squeezeboxes, there’s still hope. The second-hand market persists. And there are wonderful nerds cobbling together Squeezeboxes from Raspberry Pis.

I built a DIY Squeezebox from a Pi Zero Pimoroni PirateRadio kit and Squeezelite software.

I blanket my humble abode in music by combining a DIY PirateRadio, a Squeezebox Boom, and a Squeezebox Touch.

My Dockerized Logitech Media Server perfectly synchronizes these three devices. Music from Spotify or WQXR is seamless when you walk from bedroom to kitchen to dining room.

Home Assistant is ✨magic✨ ¶

Home Assistant is open-source home automation software, and it’s the only IoT software I don’t find myself screaming at regularly.

And, of course, there’s a Logitech Squeezebox integration for Home Assistant. The integration lets you use Logitech Media Server’s (somewhat esoteric) API to control your devices from Home Assistant.

I also use a community-made Home Assistant Blueprint that automates each of the cube’s 45 unique gestures.

Currently, since my mental stack is tiny, I only use four gestures:

1. Shake: Turn on all players, and start playing a random album from Spotify (that’s right, album – I’m old enough to yearn for the halcyon days of Rdio).
2. Double-tap: Turn off all players.
3. Flip: Next track.
4. Twist: Twist right for volume up; twist left for volume down – like a volume knob.

🧐 Why would anyone do this? ¶

In a 2011 article, “A Brief Rant on the Future of Interaction Design,” Brett Victor describes touchscreens as “pictures under glass.” I loathe pictures under glass.

It’s impossible to use a device with a touchscreen without looking at it. And touchscreen interaction is slow – traversing a menu system is all point-and-click, there are no shortcuts.

Another alternative is control via smart speakers – devices literally straight out of a dystopian novel.

While the smart speaker is the closest thing to a ubiquitous command-line interface in everyday use, I’m too weirded-out to have a smart speaker in my house.

I’ve opted for a better way: shake a cube and music appears.

The cube is a pleasant tactile experience – shake it, tap it, spin it – its a weighty and fun fidget toy. Its design affords instant access to all its features – there is no menu system to dig through.

The cube is frictionless calm technology and it’s behaved beautifully in the background of my day-to-day for months.