Strict and Practical Code Review Methods I’ve Used

I have worked at several companies that use different code‑review practices; the first method I describe is the most stringent.

In this workflow a developer creates a merge request, which opens a review interface where reviewers leave comments. Each comment becomes a “pending” issue that blocks the merge until the author resolves it. For critical business modules, two reviewers often add extensive comments that must be addressed one by one before the merge can be approved.

After the author updates the code, the merge request automatically reflects the changes, and reviewers can close the resolved comments and approve the merge.

@Slf4j
public class CodeReviewDemo {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        log.info("Code Review Demo");
        if (args.length > 0)
            log.info("Argument 1: " + args[0]);
    }
}

The updated merge request shows the new code and the reviewer’s final approval.

Beyond this formal process, many companies adopt simpler approaches:

Holding a meeting where the author projects the code and explains it to reviewers, who then give feedback.

Sending the merge‑request link to a senior developer for a quick look‑over and suggestions.

The meeting‑room style can create high pressure for the author, as senior engineers may propose elaborate solutions that are impractical under tight project timelines.

My personal recommendation is to first align the technical proposal—whether a full design document or a brief outline—with the team lead or senior engineers to ensure a shared direction, which prevents deviation and speeds up the subsequent review.

For core business modules, even a one‑line change should be reviewed because it can cause serious failures. For non‑core code written by trustworthy developers, a formal review may be unnecessary.