Skip to main content
replaced http://codereview.stackexchange.com/ with https://codereview.stackexchange.com/
Source Link

(Now that we've seen this question in detail, here's the link for the question in reviewhere's the link for the question in review and here's the question itselfhere's the question itself)

There areThere are cases wherecases where someone votes to close a question because it contains broken code... and doesn't add a reason. And I'm left baffled. The code looks fine. In some of those cases I'll skip; in others I'll vote to leave open because there was no reason provided.

(Now that we've seen this question in detail, here's the link for the question in review and here's the question itself)

There are cases where someone votes to close a question because it contains broken code... and doesn't add a reason. And I'm left baffled. The code looks fine. In some of those cases I'll skip; in others I'll vote to leave open because there was no reason provided.

(Now that we've seen this question in detail, here's the link for the question in review and here's the question itself)

There are cases where someone votes to close a question because it contains broken code... and doesn't add a reason. And I'm left baffled. The code looks fine. In some of those cases I'll skip; in others I'll vote to leave open because there was no reason provided.

added 132 characters in body
Source Link
Pimgd
  • 22.5k
  • 13
  • 37
Tweeted twitter.com/StackCodeReview/status/758320420529508353
added 38 characters in body
Source Link
Pimgd
  • 22.5k
  • 13
  • 37

First, asAs an example to showcase my issue, here's a review that may pop up in the review queue for Close Votes. It's close voted-voted as "broken code". Take a moment to consider why or how it is broken. I'm not going to give you any context here; there wasn't any relevant context regarding brokenness on the real question.

This would allow for two things: One, to weigh by your own merits whether the bug is a major flaw or an edge case ("Your calculator fails for MAX_INT!") and two, to more easily SEE what's wrong with the code. Helps streamline reviews.

A counter argument could be that people should try compiling the code, but again, what if it compiles just fine (the code in this question does!)? Should I test it by hand too? That'd take too much time. (Plus, what about code snippets that need a framework to test?) I can test parts of the code in my head, if you'd just highlight the area for me.

First, as an example, here's a review that may pop up in the review queue for Close Votes. It's close voted as "broken code". Take a moment to consider why or how it is broken. I'm not going to give you any context here; there wasn't any relevant context regarding brokenness on the real question.

This would allow for two things: One, to weigh by your own merits whether the bug is a major flaw or an edge case ("Your calculator fails for MAX_INT!") and two, to more easily SEE what's wrong with the code. Helps streamline reviews.

As an example to showcase my issue, here's a review that may pop up in the review queue for Close Votes. It's close-voted as "broken code". Take a moment to consider why or how it is broken. I'm not going to give you any context here; there wasn't any relevant context regarding brokenness on the real question.

This would allow for two things: One, to weigh by your own merits whether the bug is a major flaw or an edge case ("Your calculator fails for MAX_INT!") and two, to more easily SEE what's wrong with the code. Helps streamline reviews.

A counter argument could be that people should try compiling the code, but again, what if it compiles just fine (the code in this question does!)? Should I test it by hand too? That'd take too much time. (Plus, what about code snippets that need a framework to test?) I can test parts of the code in my head, if you'd just highlight the area for me.

added 38 characters in body
Source Link
Pimgd
  • 22.5k
  • 13
  • 37
Loading
added tags
Source Link
Pimgd
  • 22.5k
  • 13
  • 37
Loading
Source Link
Pimgd
  • 22.5k
  • 13
  • 37
Loading