There's a good rule of testing top level behaviors described in this talk [1]
For code reviews, it's about knowledge handoff. No one disputes you can write great code alone. The problem is that singular geniuses writing functional but unmaintainable code only they understand and then getting hit by a bus or changing jobs is a real issue.
It's a mess. We've been paying them serious money for a product. We've never been warned that their product isn't finished yet or that we're the beta testers for the product they'll sell to other clients. Or that we have to invest our own personal and their time to fix their problems and talk to their useless support.
This has become a pattern and I'm done with it. We are slowly moving back to older and larger companies who actually do their work properly before they roll out products and updates.
I know CGM from medico...their KIS is a nightmare. We have to communicate with it in hospitals. What an ugly monster and somehow no hospital IT is able to admin it properly.
Which of their products are you considering?
What Data Warehouse software do you write for RIS? Maybe I can use it :D
...and yeah Radiology communities are rare. I'm still looking for one...if I have time.
The DWH software writes snapshots of db_direct into a temporal DB (implemented in Postgres using multiranges) and then uses dbt to transform the data into usable tables. Right now, I use Power BI for visualisation and reporting.
However it's good for usual Doctors offices. It's terrible for Radiology Planning. Also many institutions just put a link to their homepage or phone number in there. This way they're on DL but don't have to deal with the calendar.
...
> But maybe those smaller companies don't need to dogmatically review the checkin for a documentation fix.
It's not dogma, it's just the necessities of large groups of people working together. A small organization can use common sense, a function that scales up to (20? 50?). 10,000 people can't operate on common sense; they need another function: rules.
What I was trying to say is: there's dogma about tests and code reviews.
At Google you would get fired for suggesting skipping code review.
Even at smaller Silicon Valley companies (smaller == less than 10 devs) it's unthinkable to not do code reviews. I haven't worked outside SV so it might be different.
That's the dogma.
My point is that maybe we should apply a bit of common sense on top of that.
I'm not saying Google should stop doing code reviews - the cost (to Google) of google search breaking is so high that you do 100x more than just code reviews.
But maybe those smaller companies don't need to dogmatically review the checkin for a documentation fix.