06-08, 15:30–16:15 (Europe/London), Grand Hall
If you or your organization are spending time and resources attending a Python conference, you will want to ensure your team gets something immediately actionable and helpful out of it. As coders, we often think about writing code as the only way to contribute. However, pull request reviews are an often overlooked, but highly actionable way to have an impact.
Giving good PR reviews is an art, with two equally important parts: the technical side and the communication side. While the technical side ensures the quality, maintainability, and efficiency of the Python code, the communication around the PR determines whether the feedback can be understood and acted upon. However, we have all seen code reviews that have been ignored or executed poorly due to poor communication.
This talk addresses both facets of PR reviews by introducing the archetypes of bad code reviewers:
1) The “Looks Good to Me” Reviewer: This peer reviewer provides little to no actionable feedback.
2) The “Technical Nitpicker”: This peer reviewer focuses on small Python-specific issues, but fails to
communicate constructively.
3) The “Nit” Commenter: This peer reviewer prefaces every comment with “nit,” while offering unclear, yet technically valid suggestions
Using these archetypes, we will explore Python-specific technical topics (such as pass by reference vs. pass by value), while delving into how to communicate and deliver feedback in a clear and actionable manner. Using real-world examples, attendees will learn how to:
a) Identify and address technical issues in Python PRs
b) Communicate feedback effectively
c) Balance technical rigor with constructive feedback
d) Communicate their peer review comments clearly
1. Introduction (5 minutes)
- a. How pull request reviews are a great way to use your Python skills to make an impact
- b. Overview of what makes a good PR review: technical Python knowledge and clear, helpful communication
2. Archetypes of Bad Reviewers (5 minutes)
- a. The “Looks Good to Me” reviewer – No meaningful feedback
- b. The “Technical Nitpicker” – Overly technical but unconstructive communication
- c. The “Nit” Commenter – Poor communication despite valid points
3. Technical Python Knowledge for PR Reviews (20 minutes)
- a. Pass by reference vs. pass by value
- b. Immutable vs. mutable types
- c. Common Python-specific pitfalls
- i. Ex: Avoiding default mutable arguments
- d. Identifying inefficiencies
- i. Loops vs. list comprehensions
- ii. When to use generators
- e. Using underutilized tools
- i.
pathlib - ii.
defaultdict
4. Communication Related to PR Reviews (7 minutes)
- a. Principles of constructive feedback
- i. Clarity
- ii. Respect
- iii. Specificity
- iv. Why
- b. Techniques for making technical feedback actionable
- c. Encouraging dialogue in PRs
5. Conclusion (3 minutes)
- a. Recap key takeaways
- b. Balance technical rigor with clear, helpful communication
Previous knowledge expected
Samiul Huque is a senior software engineer at Bloomberg, where he works on the company’s Instant Bloomberg (IB for short) chat tool. He works across the stack, building full-stack products where he primarily uses a combination of JavaScript/TypeScript and Python. Outside of work, Samiul plays tennis, competes in MMA, and eats his steak medium rare. Samiul earned his bachelor’s degree in economics and mathematics from the University of Richmond.