34 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
34 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
# Bad Examples: technical-review
|
|
|
|
1. > The current implementation is a solid start, but there may be some room to improve image loading performance.
|
|
|
|
Fails because "takes up to 10 seconds" and "unacceptable" are the point. Keep the severity.
|
|
|
|
2. > We should consider whether queue uniqueness could be leveraged to improve duplicate handling in a more robust way.
|
|
|
|
Fails because it hides the concrete River constraint: uniqueness only works on specific input payload fields.
|
|
|
|
3. > The in-browser approach appears promising, so it may be worth consolidating around it with a clean implementation.
|
|
|
|
Fails because it removes the decision and the quality bar: this is the one that works, consolidate on it, make it beautiful.
|
|
|
|
4. > The dialog resizing between tabs could create a slightly inconsistent user experience.
|
|
|
|
Fails because the invariant is direct: the dialog should not change size.
|
|
|
|
5. > There are some cost considerations around the proposed database provider migration.
|
|
|
|
Fails because "the cost increase seems quite excessive" is the judgement.
|
|
|
|
6. > The proposed job architecture should be evaluated to ensure it aligns with the new processing model.
|
|
|
|
Fails because it avoids the before/after: railway endpoint every hour -> self-contained pgBoss chunked job.
|
|
|
|
7. > This gateway strategy raises interesting questions around routing efficiency for multiple web instances.
|
|
|
|
Fails because it says nothing useful. The unresolved problem is lowest-latency routing without an edge network.
|
|
|
|
8. > This output seems unexpected.
|
|
|
|
Fails when the source says "This seems wrong". Do not soften obvious suspicion.
|