I am usually taking it out of work time, usually in the form of code approvals that I barely read or just ctrl+f for console.logs.
If I have an interview, all code that day is going through.
If I have an interview, all code that day is going through.
I don't think anyone should have fondness for their employer -- it's a business relationship -- but you also have an ethical obligation to do what you're being paid to do. Otherwise, don't agree to do it in the first place.
The comment I responded to was not talking about rigor. They said they weren't doing the code review at all.
> How does neglecting code review to interview elsewhere compare to neglecting code review to get other features out for the same employer?
If my employer pays me to prioritize new features over code review, then any bugs that arise are their responsibility.
If my employer pays me to do a code review, I take the money, and I don't review the code, then I'm responsible. My employer assigned the right amount of resources to code review, and I was dishonest about actually doing it.
> How about for a different employer that you're also being paid by?
I don't understand this one. You mean if you're a contractor and are neglecting code review to work on another contract?
If you're a contractor, it depends on whether you're being paid for time or whether you're being paid for good code.
If you're being paid for time, the above applies as well. If you're being paid for good code, then it's always your responsibility to review the code.
I disagree with this view. My employment is a simple arrangement: entity X pays me $Y to be their employee. To some extent, they can tell me to do things and I'll do things in response. It's up to me to find a new employer if I'm unhappy with what they're telling me to do (or the salary, etc), and it's up to them to have a convo with me or fire me if they're unhappy with what I do. If he hasn't gotten fired or even spoken to by his manager for his work, then his work is satisfactory.