Code Reviews, Software Inspections, and Code Walkthroughs: Systematic Mapping Study of Research Topics

Fronza, Ilenia; Hellas, Arto; Ihantola, Petri; Mikkonen, Tommi

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-35510-4_8

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To mitigate the limitations of our SLR in the review planning phase, we selected widely used digital libraries as sources and specified keywords as search string that cover the studied theme, assuming that the selected strategy would retrieve the largest number of relevant studies. Three of our selected databases-ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, SpringerLink-were also used in other secondary studies on MCR [8,7,10]. While these other studies also searched the Scopus database, we selected Sci-enceDirect as a source.…”

Section: Research Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Literature Review and Taxonomy of Modern Code Review

Davila,

Nunes

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Modern Code Review (MCR) is a widely known practice of software quality assurance. However, the existing body of knowledge of MCR is currently not understood as a whole. Objective: Our goal is to identify the state of the art on MCR, providing a structured overview and an in-depth analysis of the research done in this field. Method: We performed a systematic literature review, selecting publications from four digital libraries. Results: A total of 139 papers were selected and analyzed in three main categories. Foundational studies are those that analyze existing or collected data from the adoption of MCR. Proposals consist of techniques and tools to support MCR, while evaluations are studies to assess an approach or compare a set of them. Conclusion: The most represented category is foundational studies, mainly aiming to understand the motivations for adopting MCR, its challenges and benefits, and which influence factors lead to which MCR outcomes. The most common types of proposals are code reviewer recommender and support to code checking. Evaluations of MCR-supporting approaches have been done mostly offline, without involving human subjects. Five main research gaps have been identified, which point out directions for future work in the area.

show abstract

Section: Research Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three systematic mapping studies were done on this topic. Two [7,8] aimed at identifying themes that are typically target of research, while that made by Coelho et al [9] focused on refactoring-aware code review. In addition, there are systematic literature reviews on MCR with a narrower scope than ours.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%