I'd be in favor of it just to out the AI people.* Archived Message
Posted by ISeeDeadHawkeyes  on February 21, 2025, 13:25:49, in reply to "We have mandatory peer reviews of the code for all reporting as part of the approval workflow"
 Previous Message
Designer would need to provide background on the topic, then reviewer would check code for mistakes, appropriate commenting, no loss of data due to joins, no duplication, specs coded to match the requirements documentation, etc. It's really good practice and would out anyone using AI pretty quickly.
|
Message Thread: | This response ↓
- What would you do - work AI edition - ISeeDeadHawkeyes February 21, 2025, 12:11:39
- I'd blast a hole in his ass.* - Stu February 21, 2025, 13:41:40
- G* - Illiniphil February 21, 2025, 13:52:54
- I* - DocWalk20 February 21, 2025, 14:01:48
- G* - DocWalk20 February 21, 2025, 14:01:59
- G* - ibdoc February 21, 2025, 14:04:44
- I* - Illiniphil February 21, 2025, 14:25:34
- S* - Illiniphil February 21, 2025, 14:47:04
- G* - Illiniphil February 22, 2025, 11:06:30
- That's your solution to everything.* - Warrin'_Illini February 21, 2025, 13:43:18
- Did you have anything to do with the DAX AI dictation pilot?* - ibdoc February 21, 2025, 13:40:31
- Do you have a practice of code reviews? - illinibone February 21, 2025, 12:49:01
- what bonbon said vvv* - bbonb February 21, 2025, 12:33:26
- why embarrass the person? - bbonb February 21, 2025, 12:30:09
- I didn't know you were a code guy. Nice.* - Warrin'_Illini February 21, 2025, 12:26:07
- Unless they work for you, I’d fix it and move on - DT February 21, 2025, 12:16:49
- I'd passive aggressively send a question referencing the code. "Hey I'm trying to fix this code that - doubledown February 21, 2025, 12:16:35
- What is there to confront him on? Are you not allowed to use AI? - gvibes February 21, 2025, 12:14:43
- Fix it and let them know you fixed it for them. They owe you now. * - haighter February 21, 2025, 12:14:11
|
|
- IlliniSax05 February 21, 2025, 13:51:32