How thoroughly do you test when doing a code-review?

If there are unit-tests that look fine and the build succeeds then I'm usually OK

Testing is not a part of code review. If you see something that you think should be tested, you maybe could test it yourself. But even then, it's better to ask the author to make sure it's tested.

@electrineer agreed, if I find something fishy that the author doesn't see I'll test it out to be sure

None of you sometimes pull the branch locally to check yourself if it is a potentially really impactful feature that is hard to unit test? (E.g. caching mechanisms)

I do not test on code reviews

Code reviews tend to vary wildly depending on how busy the reviewer is and other factors, usually they nitpick small details and rarely ever do people spend time understanding a large commit and testing it. I'd argue that QA should be performing testing.

@webketje I always pull the branch locally as a final step of the code review process, but I am sure not everybody does that. This should be developer common sense!

@formatc I demand they keep PRs small so that it's more readable and understandable