AI coding has made CI a bottleneck, so we reworked ours to keep up
Thread
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
AI coding has made CI a bottleneck, so we reworked ours to keep up
Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.
dgroshev · · focus · HN ↗
If you even review PRs still: when was the last time you didn't just skip over tests? And if you ever looked at tests in an LLM-heavy PR, how many of those tests tested something useful, and not just built-ins and trivial behaviours?
There's at least some awareness in the industry of how LLMs generate a lot of boilerplate in business logic. It feels like we're much less aware of how much of it is in tests.
epolanski · · focus · HN ↗
It's a practice, it's not the best practice. It depends on the team/org/codebase/feature/etc. It always costs time and money and effort. Lots of it from multiple people.
You can get much better output by shifting that cost into hiring much better professionals, not better developers, but overall professionals.
The kind of people you can blindly trust that the software they are writing will be good, you don't need to get involved.
Of course there are exceptions. The author may actually want a review. Or the piece of code might be touching something extremely critical to the business but also easy to get hard.
But besides that? PRs are just productivity porn, or "we do engineering right because we follow Twitter" porn.
The best performing teams I had you hired individuals that removed work and responsibilities off your shoulders without you ever having to regret it. Never added it.
I laugh off engineers that "no you have to review, because it spreads information, enhances quality" and yada yada yada, while in the real world way more critical decisions are made by a single individual without requiring somebody reviewing their work.
Rapzid · · focus · HN ↗
"It depends on the team/org/codebase/feature/etc"