You Came to a Python Conference. Now, Go Do a PR Review!

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