---
name: code_comment_style
description: "Code/comment style from PR review feedback: no ticket IDs in comments by default, concise, explain the non-obvious why"
metadata:
  node_type: memory
  type: feedback
  originSessionId: 59e09a3f-1429-4f68-a5fb-9af4390e9b0d
---

Recurring PR-review feedback from human reviewers (Tom Wilkins, Andrew Hyde, Gilberto Pestanarosa) on the `multicluster` and `unified-helm` repos, on how to write comments in code and IaC:

- **No Jira/WSP ticket IDs in code comments or WAF `msg:` strings by default.** Add a ticket ref only when there is a specific reason to. Never duplicate the id, and never put a ticket URL in a comment. Tracking/rationale belongs in the PR description and the Jira ticket, not in `.tf`, `.tftpl`, or `.yaml`. (Flagged repeatedly — PRs #1735, #1762.)
- **Comment the non-obvious "why", not the obvious "what".** Drop comments that restate what the code or file plainly does (e.g. a header on `namespace.yaml` re-announcing that it defines a namespace). If a reviewer can't tell why a comment exists, it shouldn't.
- **Keep it short and readable.** No multi-line block where one line does; if a comment isn't clear after a couple of reads, rewrite it plainer. Prefer trimming to the single load-bearing sentence over hedged prose. (PRs #1745, #216.)
- **In Helm charts, use `#` YAML comments — not `{{/* */}}` — for anything that must appear in the rendered manifest.** Helm template comments are stripped before render, so port/label explanations meant for the live chart have to be `#`. (PR #216.)

**Why:** Multiple human reviewers, across multiple PRs, consistently push back on verbose comments and gratuitous ticket references. Terse, purpose-driven comments clear review faster.

**How to apply:** When writing or editing comments in code/IaC, default to: no ticket id, one line, non-obvious "why" only. This supersedes the "one-liner + WSP ticket reference" phrasing that used to live in [[workflow-review-and-comments]]. Relates to [[docs_keep_updated]].
