46
\$\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.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 13
    \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for this feature. It will reduce a lot of noise from our site. \$\endgroup\$ – Heslacher Dec 12 '18 at 4:41
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Does this still allow posts involving graphic languages? e.g. scratch - also related post about scratch questions \$\endgroup\$ – Sᴀᴍ Onᴇᴌᴀ Dec 12 '18 at 18:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Would've blocked precisely one of the three scratch questions here, @SᴀᴍOnᴇᴌᴀ. Logic merely counts <code></code> and newlines within. \$\endgroup\$ – Shog9 Dec 12 '18 at 19:08
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ any idea how this particular question made it through the filter? \$\endgroup\$ – Vogel612 Dec 12 '18 at 19:16
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Apparently the API bypasses validation, @Vogel612 (mobile app). I'll look into it. \$\endgroup\$ – Shog9 Dec 12 '18 at 19:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ Does moderators bypass this? \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Forsberg Dec 12 '18 at 22:41
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ If they have over 200 rep, yeah @SimonForsberg \$\endgroup\$ – Shog9 Dec 12 '18 at 22:41
  • 3
    \$\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\$ – Simon Forsberg Dec 12 '18 at 22:43
  • 3
    \$\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\$ – Shog9 Dec 13 '18 at 22:23
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ this is awesome, thank you for hearing us and making this happen \$\endgroup\$ – Malachi Dec 14 '18 at 0:08
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ LOL As requested by Kaz - this was like two years ago answered Mar 30 '16 at 8:06 :-\ \$\endgroup\$ – t3chb0t Dec 20 '18 at 15:55
  • 4
    \$\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\$ – Shog9 Dec 20 '18 at 16:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .