[NoQA] AI reviewer philosophy guide#79144
Conversation
|
@tgolen, sorry automatic reviewer assignment kicked in! Please dismiss the notification on review or leave a couple of words if you'd like to - always appreciated ❤️ |
| When AI reviewers flag potential issues, human reviewers should verify the feedback is accurate and applicable before asking contributors to make changes. This prevents unnecessary work from false positives. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Report false positives to maintainers | ||
| When AI feedback is incorrect or not applicable, reach out to the AI reviewer maintainers to help improve the system. You can either tag them directly in a reply to the reviewer's comment or reach out through Slack. This feedback helps refine the reviewers and prevents the same issues from recurring. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Haha, the AI reviewer maintainers! We've decided to make a note on that with @AndrewGable to make people more eager to tag anyone who is actually related to the reviewer.
How would you like to re-phrase that to make it more clear? ❤️
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if it is clear to the public who the people responsible for maintaining AI are
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Proper remark! How do you think it should be approached?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could create github team for AI Maintainers. It should allow users to mark all people included with a single mention. e.g. @Expensify/ai-maintainers
What do you think @mountiny?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could do that @AndrewGable what do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should just say "Reach out in the #expensify-open-source Slack channel" and it will get escalated to the right people in there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It depends on whether we want to keep burden on Vit being a middle-man, as he will likely be the one to redirect the message to us. With a GH team, we can skip this step (and Slack altogether, which could be desired or not depending on situation).
For now, just to keep the momentum, I adjusted instructions to reach out to Slack as Andrew suggested - we can change it accordingly anytime!
| **deploy-blocker-investigator** | ||
| - Investigates deploy blocker issues to identify the causing PR | ||
| - Posts findings and recommendations on the issue | ||
| - See `.claude/agents/deploy-blocker-investigator.md` for investigation process |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup, but it was merged with manual trigger (workflow-dispatch):
I will add proper info about the triggers as you suggested in other comment 👍
| 1. **Smart Linter (code-inline-reviewer)**: Catches specific, well-defined performance anti-patterns with consistent, rule-based feedback | ||
| 2. **Holistic Reviewer**: Catches general code quality issues, design concerns, and anything not covered by specific rules | ||
|
|
||
| Together they balance precision (rules) with coverage (holistic review). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe something about how to trigger each of these? you need to mark the pr as ready for a review or draft it and undraft it again if you want to get a re-review
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks, added!
| ### Validate AI feedback before requesting changes | ||
| When AI reviewers flag potential issues, human reviewers should verify the feedback is accurate and applicable before asking contributors to make changes. This prevents unnecessary work from false positives. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a good idea, but we need to make sure it is well communicated to the reviewers. Otherwise, everything will be just ignored.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree! I re-phrased it to focus on vague cases only, thanks!
|
Hi @mountiny @adamgrzybowski, thanks for the review! Here's a summary of what was changed based on your feedback (+ "Why" section idea):
|
|
@kacper-mikolajczak Can you please link the PR to the correct issue and update the PR body? can you also please fix the spell check action? |
kacper-mikolajczak
changed the title
melvin-bot
bot
requested review from
shubham1206agra
and removed request for
a team
|
@shubham1206agra Please copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button] |
@mountiny Linked and fixed the spell check (by adding |
tgolen
left a comment
tgolen
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I found the flowchart difficult to understand, so it didn't add a whole lot of value for me. I think the most important part of this doc is how each one is triggered or re-triggered, so I would try to bring as much focus to that as you can.
|
All the requested changes were address and I think we can merge this one 🚀 |
AndrewGable
left a comment
AndrewGable
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewer Checklist
- I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
- I verified the correct issue is linked in the
### Fixed Issuessection above - I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the
Testssection - I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the
QA stepssection - I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the
- I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
- I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
- I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android: Native
- Android: mWeb Chrome
- iOS: Native
- iOS: mWeb Safari
- MacOS: Chrome / Safari
- MacOS: Desktop
- If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
- I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e.
toggleReportand notonIconClick). - I verified that the left part of a conditional rendering a React component is a boolean and NOT a string, e.g.
myBool && <MyComponent />. - I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to
src/languages/*files and using the translation method - I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is grammatically correct in English. It adheres to proper capitalization guidelines (note: only the first word of header/labels should be capitalized), and is either coming verbatim from figma or has been approved by marketing (in order to get marketing approval, ask the Bug Zero team member to add the Waiting for copy label to the issue)
- I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in
STYLE.md) were followed
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e.
- If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
- I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
- I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like
Avatar, I verified the components usingAvatarhave been tested & I retested again) - I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
- I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
- If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a
/** comment above it */ - The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to
thisproperly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}the methodthis.submitshould be bound tothisin the constructor) - Any internal methods bound to
thisare necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);ifthis.submitis never passed to a component event handler likeonClick) - All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
- If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
- If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e.
StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG)
- If the PR modifies code that runs when editing or sending messages, I tested and verified there is no unexpected behavior for all supported markdown - URLs, single line code, code blocks, quotes, headings, bold, strikethrough, and italic.
- If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like
Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris working as expected in all cases) - If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
- If the PR modifies a component or page that can be accessed by a direct deeplink, I verified that the code functions as expected when the deeplink is used - from a logged in and logged out account.
- If the PR modifies the UI (e.g. new buttons, new UI components, changing the padding/spacing/sizing, moving components, etc) or modifies the form input styles:
- I verified that all the inputs inside a form are aligned with each other.
- I added
Designlabel and/or tagged@Expensify/designso the design team can review the changes.
- If a new page is added, I verified it's using the
ScrollViewcomponent to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page. - If the
mainbranch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTeststeps. - I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.
Screenshots/Videos
Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari
MacOS: Desktop
|
✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release. |
|
🚀 Deployed to staging by https://github.com/AndrewGable in version: 9.3.1-0 🚀
|
|
🚀 Deployed to production by https://github.com/francoisl in version: 9.3.1-1 🚀
|
6 participants
Explanation of Change
Create an AI Reviewer document that defines guiding principles, setup and general philosophy behind introducing AI review to the App.
Fixed Issues
$ #79340
PROPOSAL:
Tests
Offline tests
QA Steps
// TODO: These must be filled out, or the issue title must include "[No QA]."
PR Author Checklist
### Fixed Issuessection aboveTestssectionOffline stepssectionQA stepssectioncanBeMissingparam foruseOnyxtoggleReportand notonIconClick)src/languages/*files and using the translation methodSTYLE.md) were followedAvatar, I verified the components usingAvatarare working as expected)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(theme.componentBG))npm run compress-svg)Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris working as expected in all cases)Designlabel and/or tagged@Expensify/designso the design team can review the changes.ScrollViewcomponent to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.mainbranch was merged into this PR after a review, I tested again and verified the outcome was still expected according to theTeststeps.Screenshots/Videos
Android: Native
Android: mWeb Chrome
iOS: Native
iOS: mWeb Safari
MacOS: Chrome / Safari