Effective pull request and review process
# List all open PRs
gh pr list
# List PRs requesting your review
gh pr list --search "review-requested:@me"
# List PRs by label
gh pr list --label "needs-review"
# View PR in browser
gh pr view 123 --web
# Fetch and checkout PR
gh pr checkout 123
# Alternative method
git fetch origin pull/123/head:pr-123
gco pr-123
# View changes
gd main...HEAD # All changes
gdc # If any staged
gl main..HEAD # Commits (graph log)
# Install dependencies
npm install
pip install -r requirements.txt
# Run tests
npm test
pytest
# Run specific tests related to changes
npm test auth
pytest tests/test_auth.py
# Check coverage
npm run test:coverage
# Linting
npm run lint
ruff check .
# Type checking
npm run typecheck
mypy .
# Security scan
npm audit
bandit -r src/
# Performance
npm run build
npm run analyze
# Start development server
npm run dev
# Test specific flows
# 1. Happy path
# 2. Error scenarios
# 3. Edge cases
# 4. Backwards compatibility
# API testing
http GET localhost:3000/api/users
http POST localhost:3000/api/auth/login \
email=test@example.com \
password=test123
" In Neovim
:DiffviewOpen main...HEAD " View all changes
:Gdiffsplit main:path/to/file " Compare with main
" Navigate changes
]c " Next change
[c " Previous change
" Comment on code
<leader>gc " GitHub comment (with plugin)
# Approve
gh pr review 123 --approve --body "LGTM! Nice work."
# Request changes
gh pr review 123 --request-changes \
--body "Please address the security concern in auth.py"
# Comment only
gh pr review 123 --comment \
--body "Looking good, just a few suggestions"
## Effective Comment
```suggestion
# More efficient approach
users = User.objects.filter(active=True).select_related('profile')
```
This avoids N+1 queries by using select_related.
Issue: This could cause a memory leak in production.
Suggestion: Consider using a context manager:
with open(file_path) as f:
data = f.read()
Could we add error handling here? For example:
try:
result = external_api_call()
except RequestException as e:
logger.error(f"API call failed: {e}")
return None
### 8. Review Checklist
```markdown
## Code Quality
- [ ] Code follows project style guide
- [ ] No unnecessary complexity
- [ ] DRY principles followed
- [ ] Clear variable/function names
## Functionality
- [ ] Changes match PR description
- [ ] Edge cases handled
- [ ] Error handling appropriate
- [ ] No regressions introduced
## Testing
- [ ] Tests cover new functionality
- [ ] Tests are meaningful
- [ ] Coverage maintained/improved
- [ ] Tests follow testing standards
## Security
- [ ] No hardcoded secrets
- [ ] Input validation present
- [ ] SQL injection prevented
- [ ] XSS vulnerabilities addressed
## Performance
- [ ] No N+1 queries
- [ ] Efficient algorithms used
- [ ] Caching considered
- [ ] Database indexes appropriate
## Documentation
- [ ] Code is self-documenting
- [ ] Complex logic explained
- [ ] API changes documented
- [ ] README updated if needed
# Create PR with template
gh pr create --fill
# Or with custom details
gh pr create \
--title "feat: Add user authentication" \
--body "$(cat .github/pull_request_template.md)" \
--assignee "@me" \
--reviewer teamlead \
--label enhancement \
--milestone v1.2.0
## Description
Brief description of changes and why they're needed.
## Type of Change
- [ ] Bug fix
- [ ] New feature
- [ ] Breaking change
- [ ] Documentation update
## Changes Made
- Implemented OAuth2 authentication
- Added user session management
- Created auth middleware
## Testing
- [ ] Unit tests added/updated
- [ ] Integration tests added/updated
- [ ] Manual testing completed
## Screenshots
[If applicable]
## Related Issues
Closes #123
# Self-review first
gd main...HEAD | less
gh pr diff 123
# Run all checks locally
npm run precommit
make lint test
# Check PR status
gh pr checks 123
gh pr view 123
# View review comments
gh pr view 123 --comments
# Make requested changes
v src/auth.py
# ... make changes ...
# Commit with clear message
gaa
gcm "fix: address review feedback
- Add error handling for API calls
- Improve query performance
- Add missing tests"
# Push changes
gp
# After addressing feedback
gh pr review 123 --comment \
--body "Thanks for the review! I've addressed all feedback:
- Added error handling
- Optimized queries
- Improved test coverage
Please take another look."
# Re-request review
gh pr ready 123
# Positive reinforcement
"Great use of the strategy pattern here! 👍"
# Constructive criticism
"This works, but have you considered using a Set
for O(1) lookups instead of Array.includes()?"
# Blocking issue
"🚨 This will break production - the API expects
camelCase but we're sending snake_case."
# Acknowledging feedback
"Good catch! I've updated this in commit abc123"
# Explaining decisions
"I considered that approach but went with this because
it maintains consistency with our existing patterns"
# Asking for clarification
"I'm not sure I understand - could you provide an
example of what you mean?"
# Review multiple PRs efficiently
for pr in $(gh pr list --limit 10 --json number -q '.[].number'); do
echo "Reviewing PR #$pr"
gh pr checkout $pr
npm test
gh pr diff $pr
done
# .github/workflows/pr-check.yml
name: PR Checks
on: pull_request
jobs:
quality:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3
- run: npm ci
- run: npm run lint
- run: npm test
- run: npm run build
" Neovim plugins for review
Plug 'pwntester/octo.nvim' " GitHub integration
Plug 'sindrets/diffview.nvim' " Better diffs
" Usage
:Octo pr list
:Octo pr checkout 123
:Octo review start
# List and checkout
gh pr list
gh pr checkout 123
# Review
gh pr diff 123
gh pr review 123 --approve
gh pr review 123 --request-changes
# Comment
gh pr comment 123 --body "message"
# Merge
gh pr merge 123 --squash