Force File Review: Ensure Thorough Code Checks

by Dimemap Team 47 views

Hey guys! Ever found yourself needing a super meticulous review of a file? Like, really making sure someone reads every single line? This guide shows you how to force a complete file review using Git. It's like hitting the refresh button on your code review process.

Why Force a Complete File Review?

Sometimes, just looking at the diff (the changes) isn't enough. You need fresh eyes on the whole thing. This is especially true for critical documents. Force complete file review is a strategic approach to ensure every single line of a file is carefully examined during a pull request. Unlike incremental reviews that focus solely on the changed lines, this technique makes the entire file appear as "new," compelling reviewers to read it thoroughly.

Think of those crucial moments when a simple oversight could lead to big problems. By implementing this method, you're essentially creating a checkpoint where nothing slips through the cracks. This is crucial when dealing with files that have undergone numerous small changes over time, potentially obscuring underlying issues that need addressing. It's also beneficial when the overall context of the file is more important than the specific modifications made. You might want to use this when:

  • Reviewing Important Documents: When you're dealing with preregistrations or manuscripts. Imagine you're about to submit a critical document like a preregistration for a study or a final manuscript to a journal. These documents require a high level of scrutiny to ensure accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Forcing a complete file review ensures that every aspect of the document is thoroughly examined before it's finalized.
  • Handling Files with Accumulated Small Changes: When a file has been tweaked so many times. Over time, files can accumulate numerous small changes that, when viewed individually, might not raise any red flags. However, when these changes are considered collectively, they could introduce inconsistencies or errors. By forcing a complete file review, you provide reviewers with a fresh perspective, enabling them to identify issues that might have been overlooked during incremental reviews.
  • Ensuring Nothing Is Overlooked: When you absolutely, positively need to be sure. In certain situations, the cost of overlooking even a minor detail can be significant. Whether it's a critical configuration file or a key piece of documentation, forcing a complete file review adds an extra layer of assurance that nothing is missed.
  • Focusing on Context: Sometimes the overall context of a file matters more than the specific changes. For example, a policy document or a set of guidelines might need to be reviewed in its entirety to ensure it aligns with the organization's goals and values. Forcing a complete file review ensures that reviewers consider the document as a whole, rather than just focusing on isolated changes.

Learning Goals: You'll learn how to use Git to control how reviewers see your changes and practice a workflow for critical document review. You'll also understand the difference between incremental and complete file reviews.

Step-by-Step Guide to Forcing a Complete File Review

Okay, let's dive into the nitty-gritty. Here’s how you can make this happen:

Step 1: Choose Your File

  1. Pick a file that needs this level of attention. preregistration.md is a good example.
  2. Make sure you’re on the main branch: git checkout main

Step 2: Remove the File from main

This is where the magic begins! You're going to remove the file, so it looks brand new when you add it back.

Option A: Using GitHub Web Interface

  1. Navigate to the file on GitHub.
  2. Click the "..." menu (three dots) in the top right.
  3. Select "Delete file".
  4. Commit message: Remove [filename] for complete review
  5. Commit directly to main branch. (Yep, straight to main!)

Option B: Using Codespaces/Command Line

# Make sure you're on main
git checkout main

# Remove the file
git rm preregistration.md

# Commit the removal
git commit -m "Remove preregistration.md for complete review"

# Push to GitHub
git push origin main

Step 3: Create a New Branch and Restore the File

Now, bring that file back to life in a new branch!

Option A: Using GitHub Web Interface

  1. Go to your repository.
  2. Click the branch dropdown and create a new branch: complete-review
  3. Navigate to an older commit (before deletion) using History.
  4. View the file at that point in history.
  5. Copy the entire content.
  6. Switch to your complete-review branch.
  7. Click "Add file" → "Create new file".
  8. Paste the content and use the same filename: preregistration.md
  9. Commit message: Re-add preregistration.md for review

Option B: Using Codespaces/Command Line

# Create and switch to a new branch
git checkout -b complete-review

# Restore the file from the previous commit
# HEAD~1 means "one commit before HEAD"
git checkout HEAD~1 -- preregistration.md

# Commit the restored file
git commit -m "Re-add preregistration.md for review"

# Push the branch
git push origin complete-review

Step 4: Create a Pull Request

Time to get those reviews rolling!

  1. Go to your repository on GitHub.
  2. You should see a prompt to create a PR for complete-review.
  3. Click "Compare & pull request".
  4. Title: Complete review of preregistration.md
  5. Description:
## Complete File Review

This PR requires a complete review of `preregistration.md`.

**Why this approach:**
The file has been removed and re-added to ensure every line appears as "new" in the diff. This forces a thorough line-by-line review rather than just looking at changes.

**What to review:**
- [ ] Content accuracy
- [ ] Clarity and readability
- [ ] Completeness
- [ ] Formatting and structure

@partner-username Please review every line carefully!
  1. Create the pull request.

Step 5: Review the PR

Now, for the moment of truth!

  1. Look at the "Files changed" tab.
  2. Notice that every line appears in green (added).
  3. There are no red lines (deleted) because this is a "new" file from GitHub's perspective.
  4. The reviewer must read the entire file, not just focus on changes.
  5. Use the review features:
    • Add comments on specific lines.
    • Start a review.
    • Approve or request changes.

Step 6: Alternative - Review with Context

Want to see the actual changes while still forcing a complete review? Git's got your back:

# Compare the current file with the version before removal
git diff HEAD~2 preregistration.md

This shows the actual changes, which is super helpful for the reviewer.

Step 7: Merge When Approved

  1. Once the review is complete and approved.
  2. Merge the pull request.
  3. The file is now back in main with complete review documentation.

Expected Results:

  • ✓ Removed a file from the main branch
  • ✓ Re-added the file in a new branch
  • ✓ Created a PR where the entire file appears as new
  • ✓ Understood how this forces complete review
  • ✓ (With partner) Reviewed every line of the file

Discussion Time!

  • When would this technique be useful in research? (e.g., manuscript submission, preregistration review)
  • What are the downsides of this approach?
  • Could you use this for code review? Why or why not?

Pro Tips

  • 💡 Use this technique sparingly—it's powerful but can be disruptive.
  • 💡 Always explain why you're using this technique in the PR description.
  • 💡 Consider using git diff HEAD~2 to provide context about actual changes.
  • 💡 This works best for text documents, not code (where history matters more).
  • 💡 Alternative: For manuscripts, consider using a separate "review" branch that's regularly force-pushed.

When NOT to Use This

  • ❌ For regular code changes (history is valuable).
  • ❌ For files with many contributors (disrupts history).
  • ❌ When incremental review is sufficient.
  • ❌ For binary files or large datasets.

Real-World Example

Research teams often use this when submitting a preregistration for final review before locking it in, or when a manuscript draft is ready for complete review before submission. It ensures collaborators actually read the document rather than just skimming the changes.