2018
DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27438
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of change decomposition on code review - a controlled experiment

Abstract: Background. Code review is a cognitively demanding and time-consuming process. Previous qualitative studies hinted at how decomposing change sets into multiple yet internally coherent ones would improve the reviewing process. So far, no quantitative analysis of this hypothesis has been provided. Aims. (1) Quantitatively measure the effects of change decomposition on the outcome of code review (in terms of number of found defects, wrongly reported issues, suggested improvements, time, and understanding)… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(4 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To regain some degree of control, participants ran all the tasks in a provided virtual machine available in our replication package (di Biase et al, 2018). Moreover, we recorded the screencast of the experiment, therefore not leaving space to misaligned results and mitigating issues of incorrect interpretation.…”
Section: Monitoring Vs Realismmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…To regain some degree of control, participants ran all the tasks in a provided virtual machine available in our replication package (di Biase et al, 2018). Moreover, we recorded the screencast of the experiment, therefore not leaving space to misaligned results and mitigating issues of incorrect interpretation.…”
Section: Monitoring Vs Realismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The participants were asked to conduct the following four tasks. Further details are available in the online appendix (di Biase et al, 2018).…”
Section: Tasks Of the Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations