nach oben

Empirical Software Engineering

Erschienen in:

20.10.2016

Review participation in modern code review

An empirical study of the android, Qt, and OpenStack projects

verfasst von: Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane McIntosh, Ahmed E. Hassan, Hajimu Iida

Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering | Ausgabe 2/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Software code review is a well-established software quality practice. Recently, Modern Code Review (MCR) has been widely adopted in both open source and proprietary projects. Our prior work shows that review participation plays an important role in MCR practices, since the amount of review participation shares a relationship with software quality. However, little is known about which factors influence review participation in the MCR process. Hence, in this study, we set out to investigate the characteristics of patches that: (1) do not attract reviewers, (2) are not discussed, and (3) receive slow initial feedback. Through a case study of 196,712 reviews spread across the Android, Qt, and OpenStack open source projects, we find that the amount of review participation in the past is a significant indicator of patches that will suffer from poor review participation. Moreover, we find that the description length of a patch shares a relationship with the likelihood of receiving poor reviewer participation or discussion, while the purpose of introducing new features can increase the likelihood of receiving slow initial feedback. Our findings suggest that the patches with these characteristics should be given more attention in order to increase review participation, which will likely lead to a more responsive review process.

Vorheriger Artikel Investigating the use of moving windows to improve software effort prediction: a replicated study

Nächster Artikel Productivity paradoxes revisited

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

https://source.android.com/

http://qt-project.org/

http://www.openstack.org/

https://wiki.qt.io/Qt_Contribution_Guidelines

http://docs.openstack.org/infra/manual/developers.htmld#peer-review

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qt_releases, https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Releases

https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/29921/

http://sailhome.cs.queensu.ca/replication/review_participation/

https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/39850

https://android-review.googlesource.com/#/c/39881

An example in the Qt project: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/27218 and https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/30591. An example in the OpenStack project: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/36808 and https://review.openstack.org/#/c/36832.

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/36901/

https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/29856

https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-22625

https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/101316

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/35074/

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/36448/

http://sailhome.cs.queensu.ca/replication/review_participation/

Abelein U, Paech B (2013) Understanding the influence of user participation and involvement on system success a systematic mapping study. Empir Softw Eng (EMSE) 20(1):28–31CrossRef

Bacchelli A, Bird C (2013) Expectations, Outcomes, and Challenges of Modern Code Review. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 712–721

Bacchelli A, Lanza M, Robbes R (2010) Linking E-Mails and Source Code Artifacts. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 375–384

Balachandran V (2013) Reducing Human Effort and Improving Quality in Peer Code Reviews using Automatic Static Analysis and Reviewer Recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 931–940

Bavota G, Russo B (2015) Four Eyes Are Better Than Two: On the Impact of Code Reviews on Software Quality. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pp 81–90

Baysal O, Kononenko O, Holmes R, Godfrey MW (2012) The Secret Life of Patches: A Firefox Case Study. In: Proceedings of the 19th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE), pp 447–455

Baysal O, Kononenko O, Holmes R, Godfrey MW (2015) Investigating technical and non-technical factors influencing modern code review. Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE) 1–28

Beller M, Bacchelli A, Zaidman A, Juergens E (2014) Modern Code Reviews in Open-Source Projects: Which Problems Do They Fix?. In: Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositorie (MSR), pp 202–211

Bettenburg N, Hassan AE, Adams B, German DM (2013) Management of community contributions - A case study on the Android and Linux software ecosystems. Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE) 1–38

Bird C, Gourley A, Devanbu P, Gertz M, Swaminathan A (2006) Mining Email Social Networks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp 137–143

Bird C, Gourley A, Devanbu P (2007) Detecting Patch Submission and Acceptance in OSS Projects. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp 26–29

Bird C, Nagappan N, Murphy B, Gall H, Devanbu P (2011) Don’t Touch My Code! Examining the Effects of Ownership on Software Quality. In: Proceedings of the 8th joint meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the Internaltional Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), pp 4–14

Bosu A, Carver JC (2013) Impact of Peer Code Review on Peer Impression Formation: A Survey. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), pp 133–142

Cramėr H (1999) Mathematical methods of statistics. University Press, Princeton, p 9MATH

Efron B (1986) How biased is the apparent error rate of a prediction Rule? J Am Stat Assoc 81(394):461–470MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Fagan ME (1999) Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Syst J 38(2-3):258–287CrossRef

Fowler M, Foemmel M (2006) Continuous integration. http://www.thoughtworks.com/ContinuousIntegration.pdf

Gousios G, Pinzger M, van Deursen A (2014) An Exploratory Study of the Pull-based Software Development Model. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 345–355

Guzzi A, Bacchelli A, Lanza M, Pinzger M, Van Deursen A (2013) Communication in Open Source Software Development Mailing Lists. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp 277–286

Hamasaki K, Kula RG, Yoshida N, Erika CCA, Fujiwara K, Iida H (2013) Who does what during a Code Review? An extraction of an OSS Peer Review Repository. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp 49–52

Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiological Society of North America 143(1):29–36

Harrell FE Jr (2002) Regression Modeling Strategies: With Application to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis, 1st. Springer, Berlin

Harrell FE Jr (2015) rms: Regression Modeling Strategies. http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/rms

Hassan AE (2008) Automated Classification of Change Messages in Open Source Projects. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC), pp 837–841

Hassan AE (2009) Predicting Faults Using the Complexity of Code Changes. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 78–88

Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG (1998) Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences, 4th edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

Jiang Y, Adams B, German DM (2013) Will My Patch Make It? And How Fast? Case Study on the Linux Kernel. In: Proceeding of the 10th International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp 101–110

Kamei Y, Shihab E, Adams B, Hassan AE, Mockus A, Sinha A, Ubayashi N (2013) A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance. Trans Softw Eng (TSE) 39(6):757–773CrossRef

Kim S, Whitehead EJ Jr, Zhang Y (2008) Classifying software changes: Clean or buggy? Trans Softw Eng (TSE) 34(2):181–196CrossRef

Kononenko O, Baysal O, Guerrouj L, Cao Y, Godfrey MW (2015) Investigating Code Review Quality : Do People and Participation Matter ?. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pp 111–120

McIntosh S, Kamei Y, Adams B, Hassan AE (2014) The Impact of Code Review Coverage and Code Review Participation on Software Quality. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositorie (MSR), pp 192–201

McIntosh S, Kamei Y, Adams B, Hassan AE (2015) An Empirical Study of the Impact of Modern Code Review Practices on Software Quality. Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE)

Mishra R, Sureka A (2014) Mining Peer Code Review System for Computing Effort and Contribution Metrics for Patch Reviewers. In: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Mining Unstructured Data (MUD), pp 11–15

Mockus A, Votta LG (2000) Identifying Reasons for Software Changes using Historic Databases. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Maintainance (ICSM), pp 120–130

Morales R, Mcintosh S, Khomh F (2015) Do Code Review Practices Impact Design Quality? A Case Study of the Qt, VTK, and ITK Projects. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER)

Mukadam M, Bird C, Rigby PC (2013) Gerrit software code review data from android. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp 45–48

Nagappan M, Zimmermann T, Bird C (2013) Diversity in Software Engineering Research. In: Proceedings of the 9th joint meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), pp 466–476

Nagappan N, Zeller A, Zimmermann T, Herzig K, Murphy B (2010) Change bursts as defect predictors. In: Proceedings of the 21st international Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), pp 309–318

Nurolahzade M, Nasehi SM, Khandkar SH, Rawal S (2009) The Role of Patch Review in Software Evolution: An Analysis of the Mozilla Firefox. In: Proceedings of the join International and Anual ERCIM Workshops on Principles of Software Evolution and Software Evolution Workshop (IWPSE-Evol), pp 9–17

Porter A, Siy H, Mockus A, Votta L (1998) Understanding the sources of variation in software inspections. Trans Softw Eng Methodol (TOSEM) 7(1):41–79CrossRef

Ratcliffe JG (2009) Moving Software Quality Upstream: The Positive Impact of Lightweight Peer Code Review. In: Pacific NW Software Quality Conference, pp 1–10

Raymond ES (1999) The cathedral and the bazaar. Knowl, Technol Policy 12 (3):23–49CrossRef

Rea LM, Parker RA (2014) Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. John Wiley & Sons

Rigby PC, Bird C (2013) Convergent Contemporary Software Peer Review Practices. In: Proceedings of the 9th joint meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), pp 202–212

Rigby PC, Storey MA (2011) Understanding Broadcast Based Peer Review on Open Source Software Projects. In: Proceeding of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 541–550

Rigby PC, German DM, Storey MA (2008) Open Source Software Peer Review Practices: A Case Study of the Apache Server. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 541–550

Rigby PC, Cleary B, Painchaud F, Storey MA, German DM (2012) Contemporary peer review in action: Lessons from open source development. IEEE Softw 29(6):56–61CrossRef

Rigby PC, German DM, Cowen L, Storey MA (2014) Peer review on open-source software projects: Parameters, Statistical Models, and Theory. Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 23(4):Article No. 35

Sarle WS (1990) The VARCLUS procedure, 4th edn. SAS Institute, Inc

Sauer C, Jeffery DR, Land L, Yetton P (2000) The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: a behaviorally motivated program of research. Trans Softw Eng (TSE) 26(1):1–14CrossRef

Shihab E, Jiang ZM, Hassan AE (2009) Studying the Use of Developer IRC Meetings in Open Source Projects. In: Prceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), pp 147–156

Shull F, Basili V, Boehm B, Brown AW, Costa P, Lindvall M, Port D, Rus I, Tesoriero R, Zelkowitz M (2002) What We Have Learned About Fighting Defects. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS), pp 249–258

Tantithamthavorn C, McIntosh S, Hassan AE, Ihara A, Matsumoto K (2015) The Impact of Mislabelling on the Performance and Interpretation of Defect Prediction Models. In: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 812–823

Tao Y, Dang Y, Xie T, Zhang D, Kim S (2012) How Do Software Engineers Understand Code Changes?: An Exploratory Study in Industry. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp 51:1–51:11

Thongtanunam P, Yang X, Yoshida N, Kula RG, Ana Erika CC, Fujiwara K, Iida H (2014) ReDA: A Web-based Visualization Tool for Analyzing Modern Code Review Dataset. In: The proceeding of the 30th International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), pp 606–609

Thongtanunam P, McIntosh S, Hassan AE, Iida H (2015a) Investigating Code Review Practices in Defective Files: An Empirical Study of the Qt System. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), pp 168–179

Thongtanunam P, Tantithamthavorn C, Kula RG, Yoshida N, Iida H, Matsumoto K (2015b) Who Should Review My Code? A File Location-Based Code-Reviewer Recommendation Approach for Modern Code Review. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), pp 141–150

Thongtanunam P, McIntosh S, Hassan AE, Iida H (2016) Revisiting Code Ownership and its Relationship with Software Quality in the Scope of Modern Code Review. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp 1039–1050

Tsay J, Dabbish L, Herbsleb J (2014) Let’s Talk About It: Evaluating Contributions through Discussion in GitHub. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE), pp 144–154

Ukkonen E (1985) Algorithms for approximate string matching. Inf Control 64 (1-3):100–118MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Weißgerber P, Neu D, Diehl S (2008) Small Patches Get In !. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international working conference on Mining software repositories (MSR’08), pp 67–75

Zanjani M, Kagdi H, Bird C (2015) Automatically recommending peer reviewers in modern code review. IEEE Trans Softw Eng:1–13

Titel: Review participation in modern code review
An empirical study of the android, Qt, and OpenStack projects
verfasst von: Patanamon Thongtanunam
Shane McIntosh
Ahmed E. Hassan
Hajimu Iida
Publikationsdatum: 20.10.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Empirical Software Engineering / Ausgabe 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1382-3256
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7616
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9452-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2017

Generating valid grammar-based test inputs by means of genetic programming and annotated grammars

Investigating the use of moving windows to improve software effort prediction: a replicated study

A detailed investigation of the effectiveness of whole test suite generation

Search-based detection of model level changes

Do Programmers do Change Impact Analysis in Debugging?

A robust multi-objective approach to balance severity and importance of refactoring opportunities

Premium Partner