A common suggestion for improving pull requests (PRs) is to “make your PR small and focused”. I myself gave this suggestion in a recent article on this very blog about including context in PRs. Like most internet advice, this can feel like the “draw the rest of the owl” meme. Even if we’re in agreement […]
A common suggestion for improving pull requests (PRs) is to “make your PR small and focused”. I myself gave this suggestion in a recent article on this very blog about including context in PRs.
Like most internet advice, this can feel like the “draw the rest of the owl” meme. Even if we’re in agreement that I should make a PR smaller…how do I do it? How do I avoid a big PR when there’s a lot of cross-cutting changes to make? How do I create small, focused units of work when I’m building a large feature? How can I overcome my perfectionism and submit a PR that feels incomplete to me because the edges aren’t all polished?
Not all small PRs are focused. I might sneak five unrelated one-line changes into a PR. While it feels like that will enable me to move quickly, it also runs the risk of four unrelated changes being held up in review because the other is controversial.
Not all focused PRs are small. I might put an entire feature in one PR, and while it is focused, it’s still going to be difficult for you to review the large amount of changes thoroughly.
To make our PR reviewers’ jobs easier, we’re looking for the intersection of small and focused. Changes that are cohesive and without distractions. Code that accomplishes one small thing.
Note that the recommendation for “small and focused” PRs does not include the word “complete”. I’m a perfectionist and I like my work to be very polished before it’s done, but when we’re iterating quickly the polish can come in a follow-up PR. This is the biggest challenge I’ve had as an Artsy engineer — finding the balance between polish and iteration. Artsy’s core values include Impact Over Perfection but my personal values include “make things real good” and it can be hard for me to navigate that tension.
A caveat: the recommendations in this article assume you can integrate code a little bit at a time. I’ve worked on teams and projects where we used very long-lived branches for features or even epic — I know those environments exist. This article is probably not the one that will convince you to move to trunk-based development; it also might be less useful without trunk-based development.
Having said that, even with long-lived feature branches you can introduce code into those branches a little bit at a time. PRs can be opened against any branch, not just
A couple strategies we use at Artsy for integrating code a little bit at a time:
Armed with tools for integrating code incrementally, here are some strategies for reducing the size and scope of a PR. I’m not suggesting you use these strategies universally, but if you think you’re headed toward a very large PR, these are some things to try.
One of the most valuable lessons I learned as a consultant with a company focused on agile development is that you can almost always slice a story smaller. You can do this by sacrificing quality, but you can also (and probably should) do it by cutting scope. We can ship a new screen for our app sooner if we focus on building the most absolutely critical features first, and follow up with the valuable-but-not-critical features later.
There are many ways to break a story smaller, and all of them enable you to integrate code sooner in the form of smaller PRs:
Think of these smaller scoped features as self-contained vertical slices of functionality. As each one is released, users can take advantage of them, and your team can start building the next slice.
Rather than building an entire feature end-to-end before creating a pull request, consider integrating one layer at a time. Embrace the boundaries between the front and back ends of your code — submit a PR to introduce changes to the API, and once it’s merged follow up with another PR to introduce changes to the UI.
Depending on the architecture of your system, you might already be forced to this. At Artsy, our web app lives in one repo, our GraphQL endpoint lives in another, and many services are separated into repositories behind that. We must integrate our features one layer at a time. Here’s an example where Matt added a field to our API in one PR, and propagated it to the UI in a separate PR. Even if you don’t have a repository boundary between your API and your UI, splitting PRs at this logical boundary can help make them more digestible.
The suggestion to PR by architectural layer is not in conflict with slicing stories small — in fact, these two strategies complement each other nicely. A PR that contains multiple features but only one layer is probably large enough to be difficult to review; so is a PR that contains one feature end-to-end. A PR containing one layer of one feature can be easier to review.
A walking skeleton is a bare-bones, stripped down implementation of your feature from end-to-end. It connects the UI all the way to the data source. Very little of the feature is presented, but what is there is fully functional.
Start a new feature with a walking skeleton PR to demonstrate connectivity of the pieces involved. It won’t do very much — maybe it only displays one field — but that’s okay because no one’s going to see it yet. The important thing is that the moving pieces are all connected — the database, the API, the UI.
Once a walking skeleton PR is merged, you can start filling in the skeleton. Each new sub-feature can be its own PR.
This is a great approach if your team is looking to swarm on a feature. If we all work on our own sub-features without first merging a walking skeleton, we’re likely to face some intense merge conflict headaches when we realize we’ve all connected the full stack in slightly different ways. Starting with a walking skeleton removes a lot of those merge conflicts, because we’re mostly bolting fields on to existing infrastructure along the way.
This PR is an example of a walking skeleton. My goal was to stand up an app that connected React, Relay, and TypeScript. The actual app doesn’t display very much — just enough to prove that the pieces were all working.
It’s not always possible to identify ahead of time which work will prompt more discussion during review, but sometimes it’s obvious. Novel work that takes thoughtful consideration of multiple approaches is much more likely to invite feedback than work that follows existing patterns.
Routine implementation can be a noisy distraction in a PR that also contains a unique function that you really want reviewers to see. You should point out the unique bits in the PR body if they’re combined, but you also might consider separating the less-interesting implementation into its own PR.
The worst review you can get on a PR that contains both novel and routine work is “LGTM!” (looks good to me). It likely means the reviewer couldn’t separate the signal from the noise and overlooked the bits that required more thought and effort.
A t-shaped person is someone with a lot of shallow experience in many areas, and deep expertise in one or a few areas. Their skills are wide at the base, and tall and narrow in their area of focus.
Code can have a similar shape. Infrastructural work tends to be wide and shallow — it touches a lot of places in your code, but it doesn’t go deep in any of them. Implementation work tends to be the opposite — it doesn’t affect the entire app, but it goes very deep for one feature.
We probably review infrastructural changes differently than we review implementation changes:
Infrastructural work deserves scrutiny for the abstractions it introduces and how it might affect performance or future implementations. These kinds of changes introduce new patterns to the codebase and we want to make sure they’re useful and usable patterns.
An individual implementation gets more scrutiny on user-facing details. It’s probably combining existing patterns, so we’ll spend less time looking at abstractions. We’ll spend more time confirming it works for our users.
When a large PR combines wide, shallow, abstract work with deep, narrow, concrete work, it requires the reviewer to shift between two different mindsets. You might consider breaking your PR into two: one containing the wide infrastructural work, and one containing the deep implementation work. This allows reviewers to focus on abstractions in one PR and user-facing details in the other.
Some examples of infrastructural changes that could be separated from implementation work:
It’s natural for PRs to grow large. Optimism bias diminishes our ability to estimate work often resulting in more code changes than we expected. A feature seems like it won’t take much work until you get deeper and find complexity in places you hadn’t considered. There’s a lot of uncertainty when you start working on a feature and we’d need to model the entire problem to completion to know what the PR was going to look like before we started. A PR seems like it will be small until suddenly…it isn’t anymore.
This is what usually prevents developers from separating PRs — by the time you recognize the PRs could be de-tangled, it seems like a lot of effort to de-tangle them.
When you’ve got a PR/branch that contains multiple lines of work and you want to separate them,
git rebase is your best friend. Rebasing enables you to rename, reorder, combine, and separate commits. Use
git rebase to group your commits into one set for each branch you want to extract, and submit a PR for each smaller set of changes.
Good commit hygiene makes it easier to rebase commits. Commit small units of work so that they can be re-ordered and grouped, and apply clear messages to each commit in case you need to move it. While you might not always separate/rebase PR branches, you’ll appreciate small commits with clear messages when you do.
The size of a pull request can be influenced long before the PR is opened. Slice features small in your product backlog; make small commits along the way; combine small commits into small pull requests. Among other benefits, a focus on breaking work into small parts will make it easier to review your changes.