In over a decade of enforced code review experience, I've had one developer who was too immature to take feedback. Some folks take it personally and they shouldn't as long as the feedback is about the code. This requires some work on both reviewer and reviewee.

The guy who couldn't take feedback (person A) had code merged in that wasn't properly tested. Person B said, "hey A. I could use some help. We wrote some tests around $feature that were missing and the tests show the feature doesn't work. We see $unexpected results. Wanna make sure we agree on how this should work."

Person A: no, it works, I tested it.

B: could you help us identify the flaw in the tests then - they seem rock solid.

A: no, my code works.

B: ... ok, can you join us and talk through it?

A: no, it works.

A was removed from the team after management came in and A continued to not acknowledge his code could be wrong.

This was aberrational. We, as an org and as a team, constantly strove to keep the focus on the quality of the code. And, yes, his code was borked.

In this example, of course person A is completely in the wrong, but this is a bigger problem of being so immature that you can't admit any fault.

My suggestion is more along the lines of: use a pairing session for review so that you can bring your empathy as well as your technical expertise, and make it a step in the process just like any other steps (testing, PO approval) etc, and just trust people to do it.

I don't think there's any reason to use a tool from open source, to make code review enforced and with passive aggressive online communication and "blocking". Just seems to make work more painful, and less efficient as well actually.

Oh wow, kudos to you, not just for having to deal with that, and getting A removed, but for being so diplomatic about approaching him on the issue.

And yes, someone that lost is pretty rare, but I'd say lower-grade versions of non-transparency and making their work hard to follow is pretty typical (and frustrating).

> nobody can completely separate criticism of their work from criticism of themselves

Yeah I really hate those pesky automated linters running in standardised environments telling me I’ve screwed something up.

(/sarcasm, hopefully clearly!)

and yet many people on this subthread alone have worked in review-required jobs, and have not had a problem with it. They've also provided reviews for other people's patches, and presumably were also able to do it without personal attacks.

It's the bare minimum of professionalism.

If you are unable to separate feedback on your work, from attacks on your person, you are lacking some fairly fundamental skills needed for professional engineering.

> If you are unable to separate feedback on your work, from attacks on your person, you are lacking some fairly fundamental skills

Or for any job role at all?