While I am a proponent of code reviews, what this article actually described is mentoring of a junior engineer by a senior engineer, and requiring effective testing to be implemented alongside the feature.
It also shows a broken culture where the other reviewers were not engaged and committed to the success of the feature. When a bug escapes, it's both the author _and_ reviewer at fault.
It also shows a broken culture where the other reviewers were not engaged and committed to the success of the feature. When a bug escapes, it's both the author _and_ reviewer at fault.