"every bug fix must be accompanied with a test that demonstrates the bug/fix" is just dogma IMNSHO. (also see "closing the barn doors after the horses have escaped" or "lightning doesn't strike twice at the same place")
The typical rationale is the tests will now catch a re-introduction of the bug or regression. The reality is that often the tests bloat the code base, they cost in future maintenance making the code harder to refactor, they may introduce their own flakiness (the test itself might have bugs), and the bug that's fixed is generally unlikely to recur. You want good tests- not just a random collection of tests that reflect the history of bugs in the code. I often end up writing a test as part of trying to understand or reproduce the bug, and that test will often stay... But not always.
Sometimes it's the right thing to do. Sometimes it's not. I.e. subjective. The lines aren't always so bright.
To complicate things further it's very hard to gauge the effectiveness of various processes. Is following those specific guidelines a net positive or negative? who knows. I think there's consensus that code reviews in general are a good idea so probably just by having a second person read the code, have a discussion with the author, with no guidelines, you're getting most of the benefit (obvious issues surface, more than one person is familiar with the code etc.). My gut feel is that the rest is in the noise.
I do agree hiring is critical ;) yet another subjective process there. Ideally you'd only hire people with a track record of producing good software in your area of business, most other indicators are probably pretty random. If you're looking to build a first person shooter you should hire John Carmack. Hope he likes your code review guidelines though.
Another random side comment is that IMO design issues should probably be identified before code is written.
EDIT: random semi-related trivia: https://kotaku.com/the-exceptional-beauty-of-doom-3s-source-...
The typical rationale is the tests will now catch a re-introduction of the bug or regression. The reality is that often the tests bloat the code base, they cost in future maintenance making the code harder to refactor, they may introduce their own flakiness (the test itself might have bugs), and the bug that's fixed is generally unlikely to recur. You want good tests- not just a random collection of tests that reflect the history of bugs in the code. I often end up writing a test as part of trying to understand or reproduce the bug, and that test will often stay... But not always.
Sometimes it's the right thing to do. Sometimes it's not. I.e. subjective. The lines aren't always so bright.
To complicate things further it's very hard to gauge the effectiveness of various processes. Is following those specific guidelines a net positive or negative? who knows. I think there's consensus that code reviews in general are a good idea so probably just by having a second person read the code, have a discussion with the author, with no guidelines, you're getting most of the benefit (obvious issues surface, more than one person is familiar with the code etc.). My gut feel is that the rest is in the noise.
I do agree hiring is critical ;) yet another subjective process there. Ideally you'd only hire people with a track record of producing good software in your area of business, most other indicators are probably pretty random. If you're looking to build a first person shooter you should hire John Carmack. Hope he likes your code review guidelines though.
Another random side comment is that IMO design issues should probably be identified before code is written.
EDIT: random semi-related trivia: https://kotaku.com/the-exceptional-beauty-of-doom-3s-source-...