2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/qrs.2016.19
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Faceted Classification Scheme for Change-Based Industrial Code Review Processes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
30
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

3
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Many interview participants preferred to go top-down from caller to callee, but others also talked about going bottom-up from callee to caller. In contrast, the survey results support bottom-up (see The "code change" consists of all changes to source files performed in the "unit of work" [2] under review. This also includes auxiliary sources like test code, configuration files, etc.…”
Section: The Micro Structure: Relations Between Change Partsmentioning
confidence: 65%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Many interview participants preferred to go top-down from caller to callee, but others also talked about going bottom-up from callee to caller. In contrast, the survey results support bottom-up (see The "code change" consists of all changes to source files performed in the "unit of work" [2] under review. This also includes auxiliary sources like test code, configuration files, etc.…”
Section: The Micro Structure: Relations Between Change Partsmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…The scope of our theory is change-based code review [2]. The theory has been developed based on code written in object-oriented languages; it possibly has to be adapted to be applicable to other programming paradigms.…”
Section: A Scope and Constructsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This sparks discussions in development teams on the preferable way to perform reviews. To better understand the variations in review processes in practice, we performed in‐depth interviews in 19 software companies, ranging from small start‐ups and standard software producers to large in‐house IT departments . In these interviews, the software development professionals named several reasons why they believe their method of choice is more efficient: Pre‐commit reviews find defects before they impede other developers. Pre‐commit reviews might extend the cycle time of user stories, increasing the “work in progress” and consequently increasing task switch overhead. Post‐commit reviews support the early and often integration of changes, better suiting the mindset behind continuous integration and possibly reducing the risk of conflicts. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%