I’d estimate, in most cases, that the bulk of the time in preparing a PR is in documentation and unit testing. But, a PR is accepted or rejected based primarily upon the code – meaning, if it’s rejected, then this majority of the time spent on documentation and testing is wasted.
The tick boxes at the bottom of the PR template suggest that a PR is not “ready to review” until it’s all done (including work that is not germane to the decision to accept it or not)… which is fine when it’s accepted. But when it isn’t, it leaves me wondering whether there’s a way to have the code checked first, and then fill in documentation and testing after we’re reasonably sure it’s going in.
Note that an initial review would cover less territory as well, so this could end up saving reviewers’ time as well.
Just a thought. I have other rationales for it, but out of time for now.
hjh