PR reports focus on the details that reflect how well the team performs regarding the PRs, responses, changes, and comments.
This helps managers to identify the latencies of the code review process and gives ideas on which parts are not working correctly. The managers can use the reports to reach a better delivery process and solve issues as a result of bottlenecks in the process.
Time to resolve
This metric shows the period from the initial commit to the merge.
This is a general overview of the PR history so that the managers can identify if PRs are closed for a longer than expected period. Also, this enables them to get into the details of the PRs that are open for a long period to help the team resolve the issue.
Time to First Comment
This metric shows the time that passes for any viewer to comment on the PR after it is opened.
This valuable data reflects how responsive the reviewers are in the PR process. It is logical to expect that the sooner the comment is provided the quicker the submitter can get the feedback and progress.
The number of code updates after the PR is opened.
The high number of commits after the PR opened may indicate a problem with the development cycle. Therefore, it would be best to increase the focus on the testing process.
Reviewer comments are provided in terms of count and it shows how many comments are made generically on the open PRs by reviewers.
If the number is high, we suggest you check the reasons why the PRs are getting more comments than expected. It may indicate failure in the coding phase, the developers may be exploring new patterns or languages or any disagreement on the way of coding.
Reviewers metric shows how many reviewers have been actively involved in the PR process during the specified time period.
Avg. Comments Per Reviewer
This is another metric to understand the number of reviewer comments but in this case, it presents the count for each reviewer.
The metric can indicate how much involvement reviewers have in the PR process. Therefore, the spikes in this report may indicate an issue regarding the coding or review processes.