Replace "MIT on code reviews" with material less focused on code smells

[MrCordeiro]

Description

Find a replacement for the "MIT on code reviews" that focus less on code smells and more on the code review interactions per se.

Why

The current MIT on code reviews video, focuses too much on code smells that are similar to the ones seen in the Clean Code module. Plus, the exercises may be too easy.

How

New material should:

• Help students with what to look out for during code review
• How to ensure code adheres to company and industry standards and best practices
• How to provide constructive feedback to the code author
• How to handle conflicts and disagreements during the code review process
• Tips for conducting remote code reviews and working with remote teams

Similar to this: https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/reviewer/looking-for.html

Additional Information

No response

[Gustavo-1300]

I think https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/reviewer/ as a whole is a better guide for code reviews than MIT's, explain multiple things that you should look for in code reviews and how to approach rather than explain what code should look like.

This one is shorter https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/09/30/how-to-make-good-code-reviews-better/ but also touches on key points that MIT leaves out such as NIT, when to approve and tone

This article https://smartbear.com/learn/code-review/best-practices-for-peer-code-review/ could be interesting as it uses some data and metrics despite trying to sell a specific tool

[MrCordeiro]

@Gustavo-1300, I've been showing these links around and so far the people I show them to really like the one from Stackoverflow

The google one is interesting but very long. The one for Stackoverflow already mentions it, so if the reader can peruse it later if they are so incline.

The last one is... controversial. The only true message is "prefer lightweight code reviews" the metrics may be kind of distractive at this point. It's more important for students to know how to do a code review rather than collect meta information about the process.

I'll be thinking on how to merge the contents in the following week!