• kamen@lemmy.world
      1·
      7 months ago

      The pipeline should handle formatting. No matter how you screw it up, once you commit, it gets formatted to an agreed upon standard.

  • swordsmanluke@programming.dev
    0·
    7 months ago

    Net removal of 1500 LoC…

    I’m gonna make you break this up into multiple PRs before reviewing, but honestly, if your refactoring reduced the surface area by 20% I’m a happy man.

  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run
    0·
    7 months ago

    Had a coworker who was a bit like this. They were tasked to do one simple thing. Required a few lines of code change at most.

    They end up refactoring the entire damn thing and introduced new bugs in the process.

        • Jesus_666@feddit.de
          0·
          7 months ago

          Or, if the team does allow refactoring as part of an unrelated PR, have clean commits that allow me to review what you did in logical steps.

          If that’s not how you worked on the change than you either rewrite the history to make it look like you did or you’ll have to start over.

    • Graz@feddit.de
      0·
      7 months ago

      “So then after my feature was developed, all of those unit tests didn’t work any more. I deleted them.”

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    0·
    7 months ago

    Love it when my coworkers reformat the code style, making it nigh impossible to understand what they actually changed, while greatly inflating their “contribution.”

    It also blows away the git blame, making it hard to know who actually changed that one critical line of business logic 3 years ago that you need to understand before trying to fix some obscure bug.

    I have one coworker who does this constantly and if you just looked at git blame, you’d think he wrote the entire code base himself.