Eduardo Witter dos Santos
ABSTRACT
Code review is a potential means of improving software quality. To be effective, it depends on different factors, and many have been investigated in the literature to identify the scenarios in which it adds quality to the final code. However, factors associated with distributed software development, which is becoming increasingly common, have been little explored. Geographic distance can impose additional challenges to the reviewing process. We thus in this paper present the results of a quantitative study of the effectiveness of code review in a distributed software project involving 201 members. We investigate factors that can potentially influence the outcomes of peer code review. Our results show that a high number of changed lines of code tends to increase the review duration with a reduced number of messages, while the number of involved teams, locations, and participant reviewers generally improve reviewer contributions, but with a severe penalty to the duration.
- Alberto Bacchelli and Christian Bird. 2013. Expectations, Outcomes, and Challenges of Modern Code Review. In ICSE 2013. IEEE Press, 712--721. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Vipin Balachandran. 2013. Reducing human effort and improving quality in peer code reviews using automatic static analysis and reviewer recommendation. In ICSE 2013. IEEE, 931--940. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V R Basili, R W Selby, and D H Hutchens. 1986. Experimentation in Software Engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 12, 7 (July 1986), 733--743. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Olga Baysal, Oleksii Kononenko, Reid Holmes, and Michael W Godfrey. 2016. Investigating technical and non-technical factors influencing modern code review. Empirical Software Engineering 21, 3 (2016), 932--959. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Moritz Beller, Alberto Bacchelli, Andy Zaidman, and Elmar Juergens. 2014. Modern Code Reviews in Open-source Projects: Which Problems Do They Fix?. In MSR 2014. ACM, 202--211. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amiangshu Bosu, Michaela Greiler, and Christian Bird. 2015. Characteristics of useful code reviews: An empirical study at microsoft. In MSR 2015. IEEE, 146--156. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacek Czerwonka, Michaela Greiler, and Jack Tilford. 2015. Code Reviews Do Not Find Bugs: How the Current Code Review Best Practice Slows Us Down. In ICSE 2015. IEEE Press, 27--28. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael E Fagan. 1986. Advances in software inspections. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 12, 1 (1986), 744--751. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andre L Ferreira, Ricardo J Machado, Jose G Silva, Rui F Batista, Lino Costa, and Mark C Paulk. 2010. An approach to improving software inspections performance. In ICSM 2010. IEEE, 1--8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Google. 2017. Gerrit Code Review. (2017). https://www.gerritcodereview.comGoogle Scholar
- Google. 2017. Gerrit Code Review v2.11.2, Queries. (2017). https://gerrit-documentation.storage.googleapis.com/Documentation/2.12.2/cmd-query.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Google. 2017. Gerrit Plugin: Reviewers by Blame. (2017). https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/config-plugins.html#reviewers-by-blameGoogle Scholar
- Christopher D. Hundhausen, Anukrati Agrawal, and Pawan Agarwal. 2013. Talking About Code: Integrating Pedagogical Code Reviews into Early Computing Courses. Trans. Comput. Educ. 13, 3, Article 14 (Aug. 2013), 28 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). 2017. RFC 6020: YANG - A Data Modeling Language for the Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF). (2017). http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020Google Scholar
- C. F. Kemerer and M. C. Paulk. 2009. The Impact of Design and Code Reviews on Software Quality: An Empirical Study Based on PSP Data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35, 4 (July 2009), 534--550. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sami Kollanus and Jussi Koskinen. 2009. Survey of software inspection research. The Open Software Engineering Journal 3, 1 (2009), 15--34.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. McIntosh, Y. Kamei, B. Adams, and A. Hassan. 2014. The Impact of Code Review Coverage and Code Review Participation on Software Quality: A Case Study of the Qt, VTK, and ITK Projects. In MSR 2014. ACM, 192--201. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bertrand Meyer. 2008. Design and Code Reviews in the Age of the Internet. Commun. ACM 51, 9 (Sept. 2008), 66--71. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mohammad Masudur Rahman, Chanchal K Roy, Jesse Redl, and Jason A Collins. 2016. CORRECT: Code reviewer recommendation at GitHub for Vendasta technologies. In ASE 2016. IEEE, 792--797. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bikram Sengupta, Satish Chandra, and Vibha Sinha. 2006. A Research Agenda for Distributed Software Development. In ICSE 2006. ACM, 731--740. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Junji Shimagaki, Yasutaka Kamei, Shane McIntosh, Ahmed E. Hassan, and Naoyasu Ubayashi. 2016. A Study of the Quality-impacting Practices of Modern Code Review at Sony Mobile. In ICSE 2016. ACM, 212--221. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patanamon Thongtanunam, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Ana Erika Camargo Cruz, Norihiro Yoshida, and Hajimu Iida. 2014. Improving code review effectiveness through reviewer recommendations. In CHASE 2014. ACM, 119--122. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane Mcintosh, Ahmed E. Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2015. Investigating Code Review Practices in Defective Files: An Empirical Study of the Qt System. In MSR 2015. IEEE Press, 168--179. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane Mcintosh, Ahmed E Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2016. Review participation in modern code review. Empirical Software Engineering (2016), 1--50. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane Mcintosh, Ahmed E. Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2016. Revisiting Code Ownership and Its Relationship with Software Quality in the Scope of Modern Code Review. In ICSE 2016. ACM, 1039--1050. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patanamon Thongtanunam, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Norihiro Yoshida, Hajimu Iida, and Ken-ichi Matsumoto. 2015. Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for modern code review. In SANER 2015. IEEE, 141--150.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Giovanni Viviani and Gail C Murphy. 2016. Removing stagnation from modern code review. In SPLASH 2016. ACM, 43--44. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xin Xia, David Lo, Xinyu Wang, and Xiaohu Yang. 2015. Who should review this change?: Putting text and file location analyses together for more accurate recommendations. In ICSME 2015. IEEE, 261--270. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xin Yang. 2014. Social network analysis in open source software peer review. In FSE 2014. ACM, 820--822. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Motahareh Bahrami Zanjani, Huzefa Kagdi, and Christian Bird. 2016. Automatically recommending peer reviewers in modern code review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 42, 6 (2016), 530--543. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Investigating the Effectiveness of Peer Code Review in Distributed Software Development
Recommendations
Agile vs. structured distributed software development: A case study
In globally distributed software development, does it matter being agile rather than structured? To answer this question, this paper presents an extensive case study that compares agile (Scrum, XP, etc.) vs. structured (RUP, waterfall) processes to ...
Success Factors of Distributed Software Development Projects in Israel
ECBS 2021: 7th Conference on the Engineering of Computer Based SystemsGeographically Distributed Development (GDD) has now become a prominent software development paradigm. Software companies are increasingly adopting geographically distributed development approaches to produce high quality software [1]. geographically ...
Are you smelling it? Investigating how similar developers detect code smells
ContextA code smell indicates a poor implementation choice that often worsens software quality. Thus, code smell detection is an elementary technique to identify refactoring opportunities in software systems. Unfortunately, there is limited knowledge on ...
Comments