The Curious Case of the "Failed" Code Review: Unraveling a Strange Concept in Software Development 🤔
Someone asked me an interesting question on LinkedIn recently: "Are failed code reviews something you're dealing with?" (obviously they were selling an AI solution, but none the less… )
I had to smile. You know those moments when a simple question makes you realize something profound about our very challenging and ever changing industry? This was one of them. Let's unpack this fascinating concept together. 🧩
The Language We Use Shapes Our Reality
"My code review failed."
Pause for a moment and really think about that phrase. It's like saying "my conversation failed" or "the meeting failed." The more you consider it, the stranger it sounds, doesn't it?
Yet this phrase reveals something fascinating about our engineering culture and how we think about collaboration. Let's dive deeper! 🏊♂️
Unpacking the Code Review Landscape 🗺️
Picture these common scenarios:
Scenario 1: The Modern Review Dance
Reviewer: "This useEffect dependency array looks incomplete"
Author: *adds missing dep*
Reviewer: "We might want to memoize this calculation"
Author: *adds useMemo*
Reviewer: "Consider breaking this into smaller components"
Author: *internally questions life choices*
Did this review "fail"? Or was it just... reviewing?
Scenario 2: The Architectural Discussion
Reviewer: "This might impact our service boundaries"
Author: "Let's discuss alternatives?"
Reviewer: "Here are three other approaches..."
Is this a failure or the start of something valuable?
What Do We Really Mean by a "Failed" Review? 🤔
Let's talk about what actually happens in these supposedly "failed" reviews. It's rarely about the code being completely wrong or unusable. Instead, picture this all-too-familiar dance:
Round 1: Initial feedback comes in. You make the changes.
Round 2: New concerns emerge. More changes.
Round 3: Someone else joins the review, brings up different points.
Round 4: The original concerns resurface in a different form.
Round 5: Time pressure mounting, deadlines looming...
And on it goes. Three days later, everyone's frustrated, the original excitement about the feature has evaporated, and some comments end up being quietly ignored (swiped under the rug🧹) just to get it over with. Sound familiar?
This is what teams often mean by a "failed" review - not a rejection, but a draining marathon that leaves everyone feeling bitter. The code might eventually get approved, but at what cost to team morale and project momentum?
The Psychology Behind Reviews 🧠
Let's explore some common patterns that lead to these situations:
The Power Dynamic Sometimes "failed review" really means "I feel my expertise wasn't acknowledged"
The Context Gap Often what looks like failure is just a misalignment of context between author and reviewer
The Reviewer's Quest There's often an unspoken pressure reviewers put on themselves to "find something wrong." As if approving code without comments somehow means they didn't review thoroughly enough…
The Time Pressure Spiral As reviews drag on, mounting time pressure leads to corner-cutting and compromise - neither the author nor the reviewer feels good about the final result
Let's Talk About What Actually Matters 🎯
Instead of labeling reviews as successes or failures, what if we asked:
Did we learn something new?
Did the code / feature / solution improve?
Did we discover important edge cases?
Did we share knowledge effectively?
Did we strengthen our team's understanding?
The Art of Productive Reviews 🎨
Here's what actually makes reviews work:
1. Start With Context 🌍
Before diving into the code:
What problem are we solving?
What constraints exist?
What alternatives were considered?
What I like to do, before asking for a CR, is prepare a page somewhere ( Notion / Confluence, where ever you keep your wiki ) with links to all relevant info like user stories, diagrams ( before and after ), and a 3 / 5 pager ( yeah, I like to do this quite often) that describes what I wanted to achieve, what were the alternatives and why I picked the winner as I did.
2. Frame Feedback as Exploration 🔍
Instead of: "This won't scale"
Try: "I see potential bottlenecks here. Should we discuss some alternative approaches?"
Classic soft skills, be helpful, try to coach.
3. Celebrate Good Patterns 🌟
Don't just point out issues - highlight what's working:
Clever solutions
Clean implementations
Thoughtful test coverage
Clear documentation
Architect's Alert 🚨
The real danger isn't finding issues during review - it's creating a culture where feedback feels like failure. This can lead to:
Defensive coding
Reduced innovation
Fear of experimentation
Hidden technical debt
Over-use of “approved ways of doing stuff”
Moving Forward: Evolving Our Review Culture 🛣️
Here's a crucial insight: The best code reviews often start long before any code is written.
Picture this scenario: A team is building a new feature. Two developers spend three days implementing their solution, only to face major pushback during code review about the messaging pattern they've chosen. The review grows tense, everyone feels frustrated, and precious time is lost. Classic "failed" review, right?
But here's the plot twist: The real failure wouldn't be in the review - it would be in skipping the crucial pre-implementation discussion.
The Magic of Pre-Implementation Alignment 🎯
Think of technical discussions like a movie's pre-production phase. You wouldn't start filming without a script, storyboard, and production plan, would you? Similarly, jumping straight into coding without team alignment is a recipe for those dreaded "failed" reviews.
A Framework for Technical Discussions
Here's how you could structure technical discussions to prevent review headaches:
The Discovery Session (30 minutes)
Present the problem space
Share initial thoughts and constraints
Gather team insights and concerns
Everyone brings their unique perspective
The Solution Workshop (45-60 minutes)
Whiteboard different approaches
Discuss trade-offs openly
Consider future maintenance
Document key decisions and reasoning
The Quick Checkpoint (15 minutes)
Brief team on chosen approach
Final concerns addressed
Green light for implementation
Clear path forward
The Potential Impact 🌍
Consider how this approach could change outcomes. When teams invest in proper technical discussion before implementation, they might see benefits like:
Faster implementation time as major decisions are already settled
Review comments focusing on refinement rather than fundamental changes
Higher team satisfaction due to aligned expectations
Easier future maintenance from well-thought-out architectural decisions
It's not about adding more meetings - it's about shifting discussions to where they can have the most impact.
When Reviews Stop "Failing" 🎯
Here's what our reviews look like now that we've shifted technical discussions left:
Before:
Reviewer: "Why didn't you use event sourcing here?"
Author: "I didn't think about that..."
Reviewer: "This whole approach needs rethinking."
Author: *dies inside*
After:
Reviewer: "Nice implementation of the event sourcing pattern we discussed!"
Author: "Thanks! Did you notice how I handled retry logic?"
Reviewer: "Oh clever! Maybe add a comment explaining the backoff strategy?"
Author: "Great idea! 👍"
The difference? In the second case, the big technical decisions were already validated by the team. The review could focus on refinement and improvement rather than fundamental redesign.
Building This Culture 🌱
Create Space for Discussion
Block regular team design sessions
Make them informal and collaborative
Use virtual whiteboards for remote teams
Record key decisions for future reference (ADRs)
Set Clear Expectations
Major technical decisions need team input
It's not about permission, it's about perspective
Everyone's insights are valuable
Documentation is part of the process
Measure the Impact
Track review cycle times
Monitor team satisfaction
Note the types of review comments
Celebrate smooth implementations
If you're having major architectural debates in a code review, that's usually a sign that something was missed in the planning phase. Great reviews should focus on refinement, not fundamental redesign.
Questions to Ponder 💭
When was the last time you felt a review "failed"? What were you really trying to say?
How might that situation have played out differently with a different mindset?
What patterns in your team's review process could use a fresh perspective?
In Conclusion: The Plot Twist 🎬
Perhaps there's no such thing as a failed code review. There are only opportunities for collaboration, learning, and improvement - some just take more iterations than others.
Every great solution started as a rough draft. Every masterpiece began with a sketch. And every successful system evolved through countless conversations - many of them in code reviews.
What's your take? How does your team approach code reviews?