Code Reviewing in the Trenches: Challenges and Best Practices

MacLeod, Laura; Greiler, Michaela; Storey, Margaret-Anne; Bird, Christian; Czerwonka, Jacek

doi:10.1109/ms.2017.265100500

Cited by 117 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This category includes factors that are directly related to people. The situational factors included in this category are team, team interaction, reviewer response, and knowledge sharing [17], [19], [26], [34], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48].…”

Section: ) Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…3) Organization: It refers to the group of people and facilities with an arrangement of tasks, authorities, and relations [56]. The situational factors included in this category are resources [26], organization policy, organization practices, organization standards, organization attributes, and information dissemination [26], [41], [43], [50], [57], [58].…”

Section: ) Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Presently, software engineers are confronted with the issue concerning their sustainability such as lack of competency in the identification of situational factors in the Modern Code Review (MCR) process [3], [8], [9], [13], [14]. MCR is an important software engineering activity also known as a lightweight version of Fagan's inspection where developer other than source code author review the source code and guide the author in improving the quality of source code [16], [17], [26], [27], [28]. The process is performed with the help of review tools, for instance, Gerrit [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Situational Factors for Modern Code Review to Support Software Engineers’ Sustainability

Nazir¹,

Fatima²,

Chuprat³

2020

IJACSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software engineers working in Modern Code Review (MCR) are confronted with the issue of lack of competency in the identification of situational factors. MCR is a software engineering activity for the identification and fixation of defects before the delivery of the software product. This issue can be a threat to the individual sustainability of software engineers and it can be addressed by situational awareness. Therefore, the objective of the study is to identify situational factors concerning the MCR process. Systematic Literature Review (SLR) has been used to identify situational factors. Data coding along with continuous comparison and memoing procedures of grounded theory and expert review has been used to produce an exclusive and validated list of situational factors grouped under categories. The study results conveyed 23 situational factors that are grouped into 5 broad categories i.e. People, Organization, Technology, Source Code and Project. The study is valuable for researchers to extend the research and for software engineers to identify situations and sustain for longer.

show abstract

Section: ) Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ) Peoplementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Situational Factors for Modern Code Review to Support Software Engineers’ Sustainability

Nazir¹,

Fatima²,

Chuprat³

2020

IJACSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Modern code review, on the other hand, is a lightweight approach to code review, which is usually informal and supported by tools. It is widely adopted by industrial companies [20] [14] and open source projects on GitHub.…”

Section: Reviewer Suggestionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviewer Recommendation using Software Artifact Traceability Graphs

Sülün

Tüzün

Doğrusöz

2019

Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various types of artifacts (requirements, source code, test cases, documents, etc.) are produced throughout the lifecycle of a software. These artifacts are often related with each other via traceability links that are stored in modern application lifecycle management repositories. Throughout the lifecycle of a software, various types of changes can arise in any one of these artifacts. It is important to review such changes to minimize their potential negative impacts. To maximize benefits of the review process, the reviewer(s) should be chosen appropriately. In this study, we reformulate the reviewer suggestion problem using software artifact traceability graphs. We introduce a novel approach, named RSTrace, to automatically recommend reviewers that are best suited based on their familiarity with a given artifact. The proposed approach, in theory, could be applied to all types of artifacts. For the purpose of this study, we focused on the source code artifact and conducted an experiment on finding the appropriate code reviewer(s). We initially tested RSTrace on an open source project and achieved top-3 recall of 0.85 with an MRR (mean reciprocal ranking) of 0.73. In a further empirical evaluation of 37 open source projects, we confirmed that the proposed reviewer recommendation approach yields promising top-k and MRR scores on the average compared to the existing reviewer recommendation approaches. CCS CONCEPTS • Software and its engineering → Software maintenance tools; Collaboration in software development.

show abstract

“…Programming has long been in part a social activity, as developers share knowledge and collaborate on projects using platforms ranging from bulletin boards and mailing lists to GitHub, StackOverflow, and Twitter [1]- [8]. Recently, a new form of collaboration has emerged in which developers live-stream their work developing open source software [9], inviting other developers to join a programming session and watch while engaged in activities such as writing code, debugging, and refactoring.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploratory Study of Live-Streamed Programming

Alaboudi

LaToza

2019

2019 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fig. 1: In live-streamed programming, a developer working on a programming activity shares a live video of their work with other developers, who may interact through chat to ask questions, suggest alternatives, and help find defects.Abstract-In live-streamed programming, developers broadcast their development work on open source projects using streaming media such as YouTube or Twitch. Sessions are first announced by a developer acting as the streamer, inviting other developers to join and interact as watchers using chat. To better understand the characteristics, motivations, and challenges in live-streamed programming, we analyzed 20 hours of live-streamed programming videos and surveyed 7 streamers about their experiences. The results reveal that live-streamed programming shares some of the characteristics and benefits of pair programming, but differs in the nature of the relationship between the streamer and watchers. We also found that streamers are motivated by knowledge sharing, socializing, and building an online identity, but face challenges with tool limitations and maintaining engagement with watchers. We discuss the implications of these findings, identify limitations with current tools, and propose design recommendations for new forms of tools to better supporting live-streamed programming.

show abstract

Code Reviewing in the Trenches: Challenges and Best Practices

Cited by 117 publications

References 7 publications

Situational Factors for Modern Code Review to Support Software Engineers’ Sustainability

Situational Factors for Modern Code Review to Support Software Engineers’ Sustainability

Reviewer Recommendation using Software Artifact Traceability Graphs

An Exploratory Study of Live-Streamed Programming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About