🔀 Reading: Pull Requests & Code Reviews

/api/health — explicitly listed as a public endpoint:

The PR description contains this line: "Public endpoints (/api/health, /api/docs) remain unauthenticated."

This tells you the author explicitly thought about which routes should remain public:

• /api/health → public (health checks are often used by load balancers and monitoring systems — they can't authenticate)
• /api/docs → public (API documentation is typically readable without auth)
• /api/users → now protected ✅
• /api/orders → now protected ✅

PR description reading skills:
A well-structured PR description should always answer:
① What changed? — the Changes section
② Why? — the Summary (context, motivation)
③ How to test? — step-by-step test plan
④ What are the dependencies? — related issues/PRs

Reading strategy: Scan for bullet points and specific technical details. The granular list of changed routes is exactly what reviewers need to safely approve this PR.

"Depends on #298" means a merge dependency:

When a PR says "Depends on #298," it means the current PR's code relies on changes introduced in #298. Merging this PR before #298 would likely cause build failures or runtime errors because the code expects things that don't exist yet in the main branch.

In this case, the PR depends on "UserService refactor (already merged)" — the author is noting that #298 has already been merged, so this dependency is satisfied.

Common PR cross-reference language:

• Closes #312 → merging this PR will automatically close issue #312
• Fixes #312 → same as "Closes" — resolves the bug/feature request
• Depends on #298 → must be merged after #298
• Blocks #320 → #320 cannot be merged until this one is done
• Related to #315 → connected but not a hard dependency
• Part of #300 → one piece of a larger epic or issue

GitHub auto-closing keywords: "Closes", "Fixes", "Resolves" followed by a # reference will automatically close the linked issue when the PR is merged into the default branch.

Required change — "these need to be updated before we can merge":

Comment 3 says: "this will break the existing integration tests... These need to be updated before we can merge."

The language "need to be updated before we can merge" is a clear blocker — this is a required change, not a suggestion.

How to classify code review comments:

• Required change / blocker → "this must be fixed before merge," "requires changes," "can't approve until..." — reviewer will not approve until addressed
• Suggestion / optional → "nit:", "could you consider...", "might be cleaner to...", "up to you but..." — reviewer leaves the decision to the author
• Question / request for clarification → "why did you choose...?", "what does this do?", "can you explain...?" — not a change request, just seeking understanding
• Praise → "great work on...", "really appreciate...", "this is exactly right" — positive reinforcement

Applying this to Comment 1: It starts with "nit:" — short for "nitpick" — which signals it's a minor optional suggestion. Reviewers use "nit:" to flag things they notice but don't feel strongly about.