Code Review vs Notebook Review: Key Differences

Code reviews and notebook reviews are essential for improving software and data science projects, but they focus on different goals and methods. Here's a quick breakdown:

• Code Reviews: Focus on technical quality, maintainability, and performance. They involve reviewing source code line-by-line for bugs, efficiency, and compliance with standards.
• Notebook Reviews: Emphasize reproducibility, clarity, and analysis. They assess Jupyter notebooks, including code, text, visualizations, and outputs.

Quick Comparison

Both review types are critical but serve different purposes. Code reviews ensure quality and maintainability, while notebook reviews prioritize clear communication and reproducible results.

Main Differences: Code vs Notebook Reviews

File Structure Differences

Code files and notebooks are built differently, which creates unique challenges during reviews. Code files are linear and optimized for version control, while notebooks combine code, text, and outputs in a cell-based format.

These differences influence how each type of file is reviewed, requiring tailored approaches and priorities.

Review Goals and Priorities

The goals of code and notebook reviews reflect their distinct purposes. Code reviews emphasize quality, maintainability, and technical soundness. As Stack Overflow's guidelines suggest, reviewers should focus on collaboration, using open-ended questions rather than imposing rigid demands [3].

Notebook reviews, on the other hand, cover broader aspects, such as:

• Validating data preprocessing steps
• Ensuring model assumptions are reasonable
• Confirming analysis reproducibility
• Checking documentation for clarity
• Interpreting outputs effectively

"When we aim for perfection, we're focused on doing the thing right - a lot of that is about appearances. Do others think it's done right? But when we aim for excellence instead, we're focused on doing the right thing. We're focused on the results. We welcome feedback, which is motivating when perfection is demotivating ('I don't want to fight'). If the process is a collaboration, there's no fight because everyone is in the same boat. On the same team. Perfection is a lonely journey, excellence is a team effort." – Swati Swoboda, Development Manager [4]

This quote highlights the collaborative spirit necessary for both types of reviews, but especially for notebooks, where teamwork and shared understanding are crucial.

Team Communication Methods

Communication styles vary between code and notebook reviews. Code reviews often happen asynchronously through platforms like GitHub or GitLab. In contrast, notebook reviews frequently involve more interactive discussions due to their analytical nature.

"As developers we value self-learning. That's great. But realize that we learn best from each other. Google is great at answering questions. But even with auto complete, a search engine can't tell us what questions to ask." [4]

One challenge with notebook reviews is the difficulty of adding in-line comments during pull requests [5]. To address this, teams often adopt alternative methods:

• 3rd Party Tools: Utilizing a tool like GitNotebooks to add in-line comments
• Contextual Documentation: Detailed notes on modeling decisions and assumptions
• Real-Time Collaboration: Working together on notebook edits

The success of these approaches depends on fostering a constructive and empathetic review environment. Industry best practices stress the importance of acknowledging the author's effort and maintaining positive intent [3].

Jupyter Notebooks and Production Data Science Workflows

::: @iframe https://www.youtube.com/embed/gM1XMu3BOps :::

Tools and Workflows

When it comes to code and notebook reviews, the tools and workflows used for each are tailored to address their specific challenges and requirements.

Code Review Platforms

Modern platforms have simplified the development process. GitHub is a leader in this space, offering features like review requests, designated reviewers, and protected branches that ensure only approved members can merge code [6].

Here’s a quick comparison of popular platforms:

Pricing for these platforms is typically tiered, ranging from free to premium plans that can exceed $101 per user per month [6].

While these platforms excel at managing repositories, notebook review tools are designed to tackle the unique challenges presented by data science workflows.

Notebook Review Solutions

When working with notebooks, specialized tools for version control and collaboration are essential. GitNotebooks stands out as a dedicated solution that enhances the traditional notebook workflow:

• GitNotebooks: Specializes in notebook-specific version control and review workflows while preserving the familiar Jupyter format. It offers rich diffing capabilities for code, markdown, dataframes, and images - all designed to streamline the review process for data science teams working with standard notebooks [9].

Alternative approaches typically require abandoning the Jupyter notebook format entirely in favor of proprietary, platform-specific notebook implementations with their own collaboration features bundled in [7].

"With GitNotebooks our review time was cut in half, our team has accelerated analysis delivery, enhanced code quality, and reduced bottlenecks, allowing us to work more collaboratively and efficiently on analysis than ever before." - Felicia K., Research Scientist [9]

Version Control Methods

Version control workflows differ significantly between code and notebooks due to their structural differences. While Git handles text files seamlessly, notebooks, which are JSON-based, require specialized tools [8].

Here's a breakdown of these differences:

When it comes to notebook version control solutions, GitNotebooks stands out by providing rich diffing for code, markdown, dataframes, and images, making it much easier to review notebook changes compared to traditional Git tools [9]. While other tools like nbdime offer basic diffing and merging capabilities, they lack the comprehensive review platform that GitNotebooks provides.

For teams working with notebooks at scale, implementing proper version control with notebook-specific tools like GitNotebooks is essential for maintaining collaborative workflows and ensuring code quality. This approach enables data scientists to leverage familiar Git workflows while addressing the unique challenges of notebook-based development.

Notebook Review Specific Issues

Handling Non-Code Content

Jupyter notebooks blend code, visuals, and text, creating unique challenges during reviews. According to surveys, 33% of users report their notebooks become cluttered due to this mix of elements [10]. Reviews must go beyond checking logic and syntax to address aspects like visual clarity, well-structured markdown, and accurate data presentation.

Environment Management

Managing the environment effectively is crucial for ensuring that notebooks are consistent and reproducible [13]. Here are three key areas to focus on:

1. Virtual Environment Management
Virtual environments help isolate dependencies, but they might miss external ones. Tools like uv or Pixi can assist in managing these environments [13].

2. Dependency Specification
Pinning package versions in requirements files ensures consistency. For complete control, Docker containers are a reliable option [12].

3. Data Access Protocol
Use relative file paths, cloud protocols, and environment variables to handle sensitive configurations. Running "Restart and run all" can help identify state-related issues [14]. Enterprise teams often rely on Docker for dependable environment containment [12].

Effective Review Guidelines

Code Review Standards

Code reviews rely on tools like linters and static analysis to identify issues early and ensure quality [16]. Review checklists are also common to maintain consistency. However, when reviewing notebooks, additional care is needed to evaluate document flow and interactive components.

Notebook Review Standards

Notebook reviews go beyond just the code. They also evaluate markdown text, visualizations, and interactive features to ensure everything works as intended and tells a clear story [18].

Summary

Comparing Review Types

Code reviews focus on ensuring the technical quality of code by assessing aspects like simplicity, efficiency, clarity, and handling of edge cases, as well as how the code integrates with the broader project [1]. This framework lays the foundation for discussing practical trade-offs between different review methods.

Notebook reviews, on the other hand, deal with unique challenges such as managing non-code content, maintaining cell execution states, and ensuring consistent environments. Beyond technical differences, teamwork is a critical factor: code reviews promote knowledge sharing and provide backup coverage within teams [2], while notebook reviews help document modeling decisions and assumptions, which are vital for long-term organizational understanding [2].

The choice between these review types depends on project goals and team requirements. Code reviews are crucial for maintaining consistency and performance, whereas notebook reviews play a key role in data science by ensuring reproducibility and clear communication. This importance is reflected in the fact that more than 100,000 notebooks have been reviewed across over 500 organizations [19].