52
\$\begingroup\$

As requested by Kaz and approved by the voters here on meta, questions asked on Code Review that do not contain code are now blocked.

I've configured this initially as a three-line minimum (or three separate bits of code-formatted text, or any combination of the two). This may be too much; it may more easily be too little. Happy to change it to anything else y'all decide is right.

If insufficient code is included in the question, a small error is shown below the editor:

Questions on Code Review Stack Exchange must contain at least 3 lines of code. For details, see the Help Center

This links to https://codereview.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask, which seems like a fairly comprehensive set of instructions on the matter.

As with the code formatting check and the code/explanation ratio check, this only applies to users at or below 200 reputation.

Please let me know if you have any questions or encounter any problems with this.

Peilonrayz Mod
44.4k33 silver badges76 bronze badges
asked Dec 12, 2018 at 4:38
\$\endgroup\$
12
  • 15
    \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for this feature. It will reduce a lot of noise from our site. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 12, 2018 at 4:41
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Does this still allow posts involving graphic languages? e.g. scratch - also related post about scratch questions \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 12, 2018 at 18:32
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Would've blocked precisely one of the three scratch questions here, @SᴀᴍOnᴇᴌᴀ. Logic merely counts <code></code> and newlines within. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 12, 2018 at 19:08
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ any idea how this particular question made it through the filter? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 12, 2018 at 19:16
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ Apparently the API bypasses validation, @Vogel612 (mobile app). I'll look into it. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 12, 2018 at 19:55
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Does moderators bypass this? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 12, 2018 at 22:41
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ If they have over 200 rep, yeah @SimonForsberg \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 12, 2018 at 22:41
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Oh, right. Sorry. Forgot about that. That's what happens when you miss the sign that says "Kids, don't try this at home". \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 12, 2018 at 22:43
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Think I figured it out, @Vogel612 - the API isn't bypassing this check, this check doesn't even exist in the codebase that the API is running! Should work properly after the next API build. And... yeah, I spent way too much time chasing my tail before that occurred to me. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 13, 2018 at 22:23
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ this is awesome, thank you for hearing us and making this happen \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 14, 2018 at 0:08
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ LOL As requested by Kaz - this was like two years ago answered Mar 30 '16 at 8:06 :-\ \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 20, 2018 at 15:55
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah... We had no suitable functionality in our system for quickly achieving such a goal, @t3chb0t - so it got tossed around to various people on various lists for a while. Finally I just sat down and wrote a new check for the purpose; sorry for the delay, but... Better late than never. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Dec 20, 2018 at 16:17

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.