I agree with being straightforward. It saves time on both parties especially if the feedback is clear.
When giving review feedback, always offer alternatives by means of a code block. Ask lots of questions and have them explain their thought process behind it all.
On my team we're trying sort of an "alley-oop" method where one of the seniors goes and writes some tests that recreate the bug/defect and have the dev keep working until the tests pass.
More important than criticism is positive reinforcement. Let them know what they are doing right and well. Give them praise in public.
I will ask, though, is the way you want the dev to perform not aligning with how you want it to be done, or the standards set for the team? Do the standards of the team need to be calibrated for better quality and more automated confidence?
Thanks for your addition! Positive reinforcement is always good, I try to do it as much as I can (within a limit, otherwise it can lose it's meaning)
I will ask, though, is the way you want the dev to perform not aligning with how you want it to be done, or the standards set for the team? Do the standards of the team need to be calibrated for better quality and more automated confidence?
A bit of both, we're a small company and don't have many standards in place currently (we're working on it continously), it's somewhat my job to enforce them. I try my best to be as impartial and objective as I can, I will not enforce stuff just because I don't like it, I try to enforce good practices and prevent them from adquiring bad habits.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I agree with being straightforward. It saves time on both parties especially if the feedback is clear.
When giving review feedback, always offer alternatives by means of a code block. Ask lots of questions and have them explain their thought process behind it all.
On my team we're trying sort of an "alley-oop" method where one of the seniors goes and writes some tests that recreate the bug/defect and have the dev keep working until the tests pass.
More important than criticism is positive reinforcement. Let them know what they are doing right and well. Give them praise in public.
I will ask, though, is the way you want the dev to perform not aligning with how you want it to be done, or the standards set for the team? Do the standards of the team need to be calibrated for better quality and more automated confidence?
Thanks for your addition! Positive reinforcement is always good, I try to do it as much as I can (within a limit, otherwise it can lose it's meaning)
A bit of both, we're a small company and don't have many standards in place currently (we're working on it continously), it's somewhat my job to enforce them. I try my best to be as impartial and objective as I can, I will not enforce stuff just because I don't like it, I try to enforce good practices and prevent them from adquiring bad habits.