Return to Question

Boss in upper management is demanding to know why code reviewers, for instance when submitting code for a pull request, are attempting to reproduce the problem & solution (in the case of defects) and solution (in the case of features) for reasons of saving time. He insists this is only the job of the QA department and all we should be doing is looking at the code and nothing else.

I have found it beneficial to do this. This both helps me understand the code better, gives me the perspective of the implementer, helps ensure they actually fixed it (and didn't miss anything), and so forth.

Who is right here? If I am right what should I be telling the manager?

We do not have a CI/CD pipeline and are not following test driven development. We do have unit tests written after the fact but it's a real struggle getting people to even do this. Our unit testing coverage is microscopically low

Our application is millions of lines of code and is highly complex.

Boss in upper management is demanding to know why code reviewers are attempting to reproduce the problem & solution (in the case of defects) and solution (in the case of features) for reasons of saving time. He insists this is only the job of the QA department and all we should be doing is looking at the code and nothing else.

I have found it beneficial to do this. This both helps me understand the code better, gives me the perspective of the implementer, helps ensure they actually fixed it (and didn't miss anything), and so forth.

Who is right here? If I am right what should I be telling the manager?

We do not have a CI/CD pipeline and are not following test driven development. We do have unit tests written after the fact but it's a real struggle getting people to even do this. Our unit testing coverage is microscopically low

Our application is millions of lines of code and is highly complex.

Boss in upper management is demanding to know why code reviewers are attempting to reproduce the problem & solution (in the case of defects) and solution (in the case of features) for reasons of saving time. He insists this is only the job of the QA department and all we should be doing is looking at the code and nothing else.

I have found it beneficial to do this. This both helps me understand the code better, gives me the perspective of the implementer, helps ensure they actually fixed it (and didn't miss anything), and so forth.

Who is right here? If I am right what should I be telling the manager?

Edit: for instance when submitting code for a pull request

Edit #2: We do not have a CICD pipeline and are not following test driven development. We do have unit tests written after the fact but it's a real struggle getting people to even do this. Our unit testing coverage is microscopically low

Edit #3: Our application is millions of lines of code and is highly complex and enormous.

Boss in upper management is demanding to know why code reviewers, for instance when submitting code for a pull request, are attempting to reproduce the problem & solution (in the case of defects) and solution (in the case of features) for reasons of saving time. He insists this is only the job of the QA department and all we should be doing is looking at the code and nothing else.

I have found it beneficial to do this. This both helps me understand the code better, gives me the perspective of the implementer, helps ensure they actually fixed it (and didn't miss anything), and so forth.

Who is right here? If I am right what should I be telling the manager?

We do not have a CI/CD pipeline and are not following test driven development. We do have unit tests written after the fact but it's a real struggle getting people to even do this. Our unit testing coverage is microscopically low

Our application is millions of lines of code and is highly complex.

Boss in upper management is demanding to know why code reviewers are attempting to reproduce the problem & solution (in the case of defects) and solution (in the case of features) for reasons of saving time. He insists this is only the job of the QA department and all we should be doing is looking at the code and nothing else.

I have found it beneficial to do this. This both helps me understand the code better, gives me the perspective of the implementer, helps ensure they actually fixed it (and didn't miss anything), and so forth.

Who is right here? If I am right what should I be telling the manager?

Edit: for instance when submitting code for a pull request

Boss in upper management is demanding to know why code reviewers are attempting to reproduce the problem & solution (in the case of defects) and solution (in the case of features) for reasons of saving time. He insists this is only the job of the QA department and all we should be doing is looking at the code and nothing else.

I have found it beneficial to do this. This both helps me understand the code better, gives me the perspective of the implementer, helps ensure they actually fixed it (and didn't miss anything), and so forth.

Who is right here? If I am right what should I be telling the manager?

Edit: for instance when submitting code for a pull request

Edit #2: We do not have a CICD pipeline and are not following test driven development. We do have unit tests written after the fact but it's a real struggle getting people to even do this. Our unit testing coverage is microscopically low

Edit #3: Our application is millions of lines of code and is highly complex and enormous.