code-review

name	code-review
description	Systematic code review for RoboView contributions. Use when reviewing pull requests, checking code quality, or validating changes before merge. Covers style, testing, security, and cross-surface consistency.

Code Review for RoboView

Review Philosophy

Good code review catches issues early, shares knowledge, and maintains consistency. Focus on:

1. Correctness — Does it work? Does it handle edge cases?
2. Maintainability — Can others understand and modify it?
3. Consistency — Does it follow project patterns?
4. Testing — Is it adequately tested?
5. Cross-Surface Impact — Does it affect other surfaces correctly?

Review Checklist by Surface

Python Backend (packages/roboview/)

Code Quality

• Follows existing patterns (services, registries, schemas)
• Type hints on all public functions and methods
• Docstrings on all public functions with Args/Returns
• No unused imports or variables
• Exceptions are specific, not bare except:
• Logging uses structured format with appropriate levels

Testing

• New functionality has corresponding tests
• Tests use factory helpers, not hardcoded data
• Test names follow test_<method>_<scenario> pattern
• Edge cases are covered (empty inputs, None values)
• pytest passes locally

Type Safety

• pyright reports no errors on changed files
• Schema models use Field() with descriptions
• Optional fields explicitly typed as X | None

API Changes

• Response models defined in schemas/dtos/
• Error responses documented
• Endpoint has summary and description
• Breaking changes documented

TypeScript Extension (vscode-integration/src/)

Code Quality

• Follows existing service patterns
• Proper error handling with user-friendly messages
• Disposables are cleaned up
• Output channel logging for debugging
• No any types without justification

Testing

• Critical paths have tests
• Mocks are minimal and focused
• npm run check-types passes
• npm run lint passes

VS Code API Usage

• Commands registered in registerCommands()
• Subscriptions added to context.subscriptions
• Configuration reads use proper defaults
• Webview messages are typed

React Webview (vscode-integration/webview-ui/)

Code Quality

• Components follow existing patterns
• Props are typed with interfaces
• Hooks follow rules (dependencies, cleanup)
• No direct DOM manipulation
• Tailwind classes used consistently

State Management

• Local state for UI-only concerns
• Message passing for data from extension
• Memoization for expensive computations
• Loading states handled

Accessibility

• Interactive elements are keyboard accessible
• ARIA labels where needed
• Color contrast meets VS Code theme requirements

Performance

• Large lists use virtualization
• No unnecessary re-renders
• Images/assets are optimized

Robot Framework Tests (rf_usergrp_vtiger/)

Code Quality

• Keywords have [Documentation]
• Variables use consistent naming (${UPPER_CASE} for constants)
• Resource imports are minimal and specific
• Selectors in separate sel*.resource files

Test Quality

• Tests are independent (can run in any order)
• Test names describe behavior, not implementation
• Appropriate tags for filtering
• Setup/teardown handle cleanup

Review by Change Type

New Feature

1. Design Review

   • Does the feature fit the existing architecture?
   • Are interfaces minimal and deep?
   • Is it in the right surface(s)?

2. Implementation Review

   • Follows established patterns?
   • Handles errors gracefully?
   • Has appropriate logging?

3. Testing Review

   • Unit tests for new logic
   • Integration tests if crossing surfaces
   • Manual testing instructions provided

4. Documentation Review

   • Code comments where non-obvious
   • README updates if needed
   • API documentation if applicable

Bug Fix

1. Root Cause

   • Is the actual root cause addressed?
   • Could the fix cause regressions?

2. Regression Test

   • Is there a test that would have caught this?
   • Is there a test that prevents recurrence?

3. Similar Issues

   • Are there similar patterns elsewhere that need fixing?

Refactoring

1. Behavior Preservation

   • Does existing functionality still work?
   • Are tests updated appropriately?

2. Incremental Change

   • Is the refactor scoped appropriately?
   • Can it be merged safely?

3. Cross-Surface Impact

   • Does this affect interfaces between surfaces?
   • Are dependent surfaces updated?

Review Comments

Good Comment Examples

# Specific and actionable
"This could return `None` if the registry is empty. Consider handling that case explicitly."

# Explains why
"The current pattern uses dependency injection here. Could we follow that instead of accessing `request.app.state` directly?"

# Offers alternative
"This nested loop is O(n²). For large registries, consider pre-building a lookup dict."

# Asks clarifying question
"I see this catches all exceptions. Is there a specific exception type we expect here?"

Comment Levels

• Blocker: Must be fixed before merge
• Suggestion: Would improve code, author's discretion
• Question: Clarification needed, may not require change
• Nit: Minor style/preference, low priority

Automated Checks

Ensure these pass before manual review:

# Python
- pyright packages/roboview/
- pytest packages/roboview/tests/utest/ --tb=short
- deptry packages/roboview/

# TypeScript
- npm run check-types (in vscode-integration/)
- npm run lint (in vscode-integration/)

# Webview
- npm run typecheck (in webview-ui/)
- npm run build (in webview-ui/)

Post-Review

After approval:

• Squash/rebase commits if needed
• Update PR description with final changes
• Merge when CI passes
• Delete feature branch
• Verify deployment/build succeeds