research-article

Information Needs in Contemporary Code Review

Authors:

Luca Pascarella,

Davide Spadini,

Magiel Bruntink,

Alberto BacchelliAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 2, Issue CSCW

Article No.: 135, Pages 1 - 27

https://doi.org/10.1145/3274404

Published: 01 November 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Contemporary code review is a widespread practice used by software engineers to maintain high software quality and share project knowledge. However, conducting proper code review takes time and developers often have limited time for review. In this paper, we aim at investigating the information that reviewers need to conduct a proper code review, to better understand this process and how research and tool support can make developers become more effective and efficient reviewers. Previous work has provided evidence that a successful code review process is one in which reviewers and authors actively participate and collaborate. In these cases, the threads of discussions that are saved by code review tools are a precious source of information that can be later exploited for research and practice. In this paper, we focus on this source of information as a way to gather reliable data on the aforementioned reviewers' needs. We manually analyze 900 code review comments from three large open-source projects and organize them in categories by means of a card sort. Our results highlight the presence of seven high-level information needs, such as knowing the uses of methods and variables declared/modified in the code under review. Based on these results we suggest ways in which future code review tools can better support collaboration and the reviewing task.

References

[1]

Ulrike Abelein and Barbara Paech. 2015. Understanding the Influence of User Participation and Involvement on System Success: a Systematic Mapping Study . Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 20, 1 (2015), 28--81.

Digital Library

[2]

Alberto Bacchelli and Christian Bird. 2013. Expectations, Outcomes, and Challenges of Modern Code Review. In 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2013a). 710--719.

Digital Library

[3]

Richard A Baker Jr. 1997. Code reviews enhance software quality. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, 570--571.

Digital Library

[4]

Vipin Balachandran. 2013. Reducing human effort and improving quality in peer code reviews using automatic static analysis and reviewer recommendation. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Press, 931--940.

Digital Library

[5]

Mike Barnett, Christian Bird, Joao Brunet, and Shuvendu K Lahiri. 2015. Helping developers help themselves: Automatic decomposition of code review changesets. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Press .

Digital Library

[6]

Tobias Baum, Olga Liskin, Kai Niklas, and Kurt Schneider. 2016. A Faceted Classification Scheme for Change-Based Industrial Code Review Processes. In Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS), 2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, Vienna, Austria.

[7]

Tobias Baum, Kurt Schneider, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2017. On the Optimal Order of Reading Source Code Changes for Review. In 33rd IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), Proceedings .

[8]

Gabriele Bavota and Barbara Russo. 2015. Four eyes are better than two: On the impact of code reviews on software quality. In 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2015 - Proceedings. 81--90.

Digital Library

[9]

Olga Baysal, Oleksii Kononenko, Reid Holmes, and Michael W Godfrey. 2013. The influence of non-technical factors on code review. In Reverse Engineering (WCRE), 2013 20th Working Conference on. IEEE, 122--131.

[10]

Moritz Beller, Alberto Bacchelli, Andy Zaidman, and Elmar Juergens. 2014. Modern code reviews in open-source projects: which problems do they fix?. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. ACM, 202--211.

Digital Library

[11]

Fevzi Belli and Radu Crisan. 1996. Towards automation of checklist-based code-reviews. In Software Reliability Engineering, 1996. Proceedings., Seventh International Symposium on. IEEE, 24--33.

Digital Library

[12]

Silvia Breu, Rahul Premraj, Jonathan Sillito, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2010. Information Needs in Bug Reports : Improving Cooperation Between Developers and Users . Proceedings of the 2010 Computer Supported Cooperative Work Conference (2010), 301--310.

Digital Library

[13]

Raymond PL Buse and Westley R Weimer. 2010. Automatically documenting program changes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering. ACM, 33--42.

Digital Library

[14]

Raymond P.L. Buse and Thomas Zimmermann. 2012. Information needs for software development analytics. In Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering. 987--996.

Digital Library

[15]

Gerardo Canfora, Luigi Cerulo, and Massimiliano Di Penta. 2009. Ldiff: An enhanced line differencing tool. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 595--598.

Digital Library

[16]

Robert Chatley and Lawrence Jones. 2018. Diggit: Automated code review via software repository mining. In 2018 IEEE 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 567--571.

[17]

Jason Cohen. 2010. Modern Code Review. In Making Software, Andy Oram and Greg Wilson (Eds.). O'Reilly, Chapter 18, 329--338.

[18]

W. J. Conover. 1999. Practical Nonparametric Statistics 3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[19]

Luis Fernando Cortés-Coy, Mario Linares-Vásquez, Jairo Aponte, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2014. On automatically generating commit messages via summarization of source code changes. In Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM), 2014 IEEE 14th International Working Conference on. IEEE, 275--284.

Digital Library

[20]

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 Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Software Engineering . IEEE -- Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=242201

Digital Library

[21]

Marco di Biase, Magiel Bruntink, Arie van Deursen, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018. The effects of change-decomposition on code review-A Controlled Experiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.10978 (2018).

[22]

Mart'in Dias, Alberto Bacchelli, Georgios Gousios, Damien Cassou, and Stéphane Ducasse. 2015. Untangling fine-grained code changes. In Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on. IEEE, 341--350.

[23]

Felipe Ebert, Fernando Castor, Nicole Novielli, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2017. Confusion Detection in Code Reviews. In 33rd International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), Proceedings. ICSME.

[24]

Deborah Finfgeld-Connett. 2014. Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qualitative Research, Vol. 14, 3 (2014), 341--352.

[25]

Georgios Gousios, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2016. Work Practices and Challenges in Pull-Based Development: The Contributor's Perspective. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '16). ACM, 285--296.

Digital Library

[26]

Georgios Gousios, Andy Zaidman, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Arie Van Deursen. 2015. Work practices and challenges in pull-based development: the integrator's perspective. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1. IEEE Press, 358--368.

Digital Library

[27]

Robert J Grissom and John J Kim. 2005. Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

[28]

Kazuki Hamasaki, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Norihiro Yoshida, AE Cruz, Kenji Fujiwara, and Hajimu Iida. 2013. Who does what during a code review? datasets of oss peer review repositories. In Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE Press, 49--52.

Digital Library

[29]

JD Herbsleb and E Kuwana. 1993. Preserving knowledge in design projects: What designers need to know . Chi '93 & Interact '93 (1993), 7--14.

Digital Library

[30]

Kim Herzig and Andreas Zeller. 2013. The impact of tangled code changes. In Proceedings of the 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE Press, 121--130.

Digital Library

[31]

Yujuan Jiang, Bram Adams, and Daniel M. German. 2013. Will my patch make it? And how fast?: Case study on the linux kernel. In IEEE International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories . 101--110.

Digital Library

[32]

Norihito Kitagawa, Hideaki Hata, Akinori Ihara, Kiminao Kogiso, and Kenichi Matsumoto. 2016. Code review participation: game theoretical modeling of reviewers in gerrit datasets. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. ACM, 64--67.

Digital Library

[33]

Andrew J. Ko, Robert DeLine, and Gina Venolia. 2007. Information Needs in Collocated Software Development Teams. In 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'07). 344--353.

[34]

Oleksii Kononenko, Olga Baysal, Latifa Guerrouj, Yaxin Cao, and Michael W. Godfrey. 2015. Investigating code review quality: Do people and participation matter?. In 2015 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2015 - Proceedings. 111--120.

Digital Library

[35]

Klaus Krippendorff. 2011. Agreement and information in the reliability of coding. Communication Methods and Measures, Vol. 5, 2 (2011), 93--112.

[36]

Mike Kuniavsky. 2003. Observing the user experience: a practitioner's guide to user research .Elsevier.

Digital Library

[37]

Mika V Mantyla and Casper Lassenius. 2009. What types of defects are really discovered in code reviews? Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, Vol. 35, 3 (2009), 430--448.

Digital Library

[38]

Shane McIntosh, Yasutaka Kamei, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E 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 Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. ACM, 192--201.

Digital Library

[39]

Shane McIntosh, Yasutaka Kamei, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2016. An empirical study of the impact of modern code review practices on software quality ., Vol. 21, 5 (2016), 2146--2189.

Digital Library

[40]

Robert K Merton and Patricia L Kendall. 1946. The focused interview. American journal of Sociology, Vol. 51, 6 (1946), 541--557.

[41]

Rodrigo Morales, Shane McIntosh, and Foutse Khomh. 2015. Do code review practices impact design quality? a case study of the qt, vtk, and itk projects. In Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on. IEEE, 171--180.

[42]

Hazel E Nelson. 1976. A modified card sorting test sensitive to frontal lobe defects. Cortex, Vol. 12, 4 (1976), 313--324.

[43]

Fabio Palomba, Gabriele Bavota, Massimiliano Di Penta, Rocco Oliveto, Denys Poshyvanyk, and Andrea De Lucia. 2015. Mining version histories for detecting code smells. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 41, 5 (2015), 462--489.

Digital Library

[44]

Fabio Palomba, Annibale Panichella, Andy Zaidman, Rocco Oliveto, and Andrea De Lucia. 2017. The scent of a smell: An extensive comparison between textual and structural smells. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2017).

Digital Library

[45]

Chris Parnin and Carsten G”org. 2008. Improving change descriptions with change contexts. In Proceedings of the 2008 international working conference on Mining software repositories. ACM, 51--60.

Digital Library

[46]

Luca Ponzanelli, Simone Scalabrino, Gabriele Bavota, Andrea Mocci, Massimiliano Di Penta, Rocco Oliveto, and Michele Lanza. 2017. Supporting Software Developers with a Holistic Recommender System. In Proceedings of ICSE 2017 (39th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering) . to be published.

Digital Library

[47]

Adam Porter, Harvey Siy, Audris Mockus, and Lawrence Votta. 1998. Understanding the sources of variation in software inspections. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), Vol. 7, 1 (1998), 41--79.

Digital Library

[48]

Achyudh Ram, Anand Ashok Sawant, Marco Castelluccio, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018. What Makes A Code Change Easier To Review? An Empirical Investigation On Code Change Reviewability. In 26th Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2018). forthcoming.

Digital Library

[49]

Peter C Rigby and Christian Bird. 2013. Convergent contemporary software peer review practices. In Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 202--212.

Digital Library

[50]

Peter C Rigby, Daniel M German, Laura Cowen, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2014. Peer Review on Open Source Software Projects: Parameters, Statistical Models, and Theory. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2014), 34.

Digital Library

[51]

Caitlin Sadowski, Emma Söderberg, Luke Church, Michal Sipko, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018. Modern code review: a case study at google. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice. ACM, 181--190.

Digital Library

[52]

Chris Sauer, D Ross Jeffery, Lesley Land, and Philip Yetton. 2000. The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: A behaviorally motivated program of research. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, Vol. 26, 1 (2000), 1--14.

Digital Library

[53]

Jonathan Sillito, Gail C Murphy, and Kris De Volder. 2006. Questions programmers ask during software evolution tasks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering. ACM, 23--34.

Digital Library

[54]

Davide Spadini, Maur'icio Aniche, Margaret-Anne Storey, Magiel Bruntink, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018. When Testing Meets Code Review: Why and How Developers Review Tests. In Software Engineering (ICSE), 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th International Conference on. to appear.

Digital Library

[55]

Andrew Sutherland and Gina Venolia. 2009a. Can peer code reviews be exploited for later information needs?. In Software Engineering-Companion Volume, 2009. ICSE-Companion 2009. 31st International Conference on. IEEE, 259--262.

[56]

Andrew Sutherland and Gina Venolia. 2009b. Can peer code reviews be exploited for later information needs?. In Software Engineering-Companion Volume, 2009. ICSE-Companion 2009. 31st International Conference on. IEEE, 259--262.

[57]

Yida Tao, Yingnong Dang, Tao Xie, Dongmei Zhang, and Sunghun Kim. 2012. How do software engineers understand code changes?: an exploratory study in industry. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM.

Digital Library

[58]

Yida Tao and Sunghun Kim. 2015. Partitioning composite code changes to facilitate code review. In Proceedings of the 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE Press, 180--190.

Digital Library

[59]

Patanamon Thongtanunam, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Ana Erika Camargo Cruz, Norihiro Yoshida, and Hajimu Iida. 2014. Improving code review effectiveness through reviewer recommendations. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. ACM, 119--122.

Digital Library

[60]

Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane McIntosh, Ahmed E Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2015a. Investigating Code Review Practices in Defective Files: An Empirical Study of the Qt System. In MSR '15 Proceedings of the 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories .

Digital Library

[61]

Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane Mcintosh, Ahmed E. Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2016a. Review Participation in Modern Code Review . Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE) (2016), to appear.

Digital Library

[62]

Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane McIntosh, Ahmed E Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2016b. Revisiting code ownership and its relationship with software quality in the scope of modern code review. In Proceedings of the 38th international conference on software engineering. ACM, 1039--1050.

Digital Library

[63]

Patanamon Thongtanunam, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Norihiro Yoshida, Hajimu Iida, and Ken-ichi Matsumoto. 2015b. Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for modern code review. In Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on. IEEE, 141--150.

[64]

Jason Tsay, Laura Dabbish, and James Herbsleb. 2014. Let's talk about it: evaluating contributions through discussion in GitHub. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 144--154.

Digital Library

[65]

Yuriy Tymchuk, Andrea Mocci, and Michele Lanza. 2015. Code Review: Veni, ViDI, Vici. In Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on. IEEE, 151--160.

[66]

Bogdan Vasilescu, Daryl Posnett, Baishakhi Ray, Mark GJ van den Brand, Alexander Serebrenik, Premkumar Devanbu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2015. Gender and tenure diversity in GitHub teams. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3789--3798.

Digital Library

[67]

Martin Vechev, Eran Yahav, et almbox. 2016. Programming with “Big Code”. Foundations and Trends® in Programming Languages, Vol. 3, 4 (2016), 231--284.

Digital Library

[68]

Robert S Weiss. 1995. Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies .Simon and Schuster.

[69]

Kenji Yamauchi, Jiachen Yang, Keisuke Hotta, Yoshiki Higo, and Shinji Kusumoto. 2014. Clustering commits for understanding the intents of implementation. In Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), 2014 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 406--410.

Digital Library

Cited By

Franke LLiang HFarzanehpour SBrantly ADavis JBrown C(2024)An Exploratory Mixed-methods Study on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance in Open-Source SoftwareProceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement10.1145/3674805.3686692(325-336)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3674805.3686692
Heander LSöderberg ERydenfält C(2024)Design of Flexible Code Block Comparisons to Improve Code Review of Refactored CodeCompanion Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming10.1145/3660829.3660842(57-67)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660829.3660842
Sarma AChen N(2024)Effective Teaching through Code Reviews: Patterns and Anti-patternsProceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering10.1145/36607641:FSE(1262-1283)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660764
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Information Needs in Contemporary Code Review
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software verification and validation

Recommendations

Code review quality: how developers see it
ICSE '16: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering

In a large, long-lived project, an effective code review process is key to ensuring the long-term quality of the code base. In this work, we study code review practices of a large, open source project, and we investigate how the developers themselves ...
Demystifying code snippets in code reviews: a study of the OpenStack and Qt communities and a practitioner survey
Abstract
Code review is widely known as one of the best practices for software quality assurance in software development. In a typical code review process, reviewers check the code committed by developers to ensure the quality of the code, during which ...
Code smells detection via modern code review: a study of the OpenStack and Qt communities
Abstract
Code review plays an important role in software quality control. A typical review process involves a careful check of a piece of code in an attempt to detect and locate defects and other quality issues/violations. One type of issue that may impact ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 2, Issue CSCW

November 2018

4104 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3290265

Editors:
Karrie Karahalios
University of Illinois & Adobe
,
Andrés Monroy-Hernández
Snap Inc.
,
Airi Lampinen
Stockholm University
,
Geraldine Fitzpatrick
Vienna University of Technology

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2018

Published in PACMHCI Volume 2, Issue CSCW

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

European Union's Horizon 2020
Swiss National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

79
Total Citations
View Citations
931
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)141
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)23

Reflects downloads up to 25 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Franke LLiang HFarzanehpour SBrantly ADavis JBrown C(2024)An Exploratory Mixed-methods Study on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Compliance in Open-Source SoftwareProceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement10.1145/3674805.3686692(325-336)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3674805.3686692
Heander LSöderberg ERydenfält C(2024)Design of Flexible Code Block Comparisons to Improve Code Review of Refactored CodeCompanion Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Art, Science, and Engineering of Programming10.1145/3660829.3660842(57-67)Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660829.3660842
Sarma AChen N(2024)Effective Teaching through Code Reviews: Patterns and Anti-patternsProceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering10.1145/36607641:FSE(1262-1283)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3660764
Unterkalmsteiner MBadampudi DBritto RAli NDig DBryksin TGolubev YBezzubov A(2024)Help Me to Understand this Commit! - A Vision for Contextualized Code ReviewsProceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE Workshop on Integrated Development Environments10.1145/3643796.3648447(18-23)Online publication date: 20-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643796.3648447
Horvath AMacvean AMyers B(2024)Meta-Manager: A Tool for Collecting and Exploring Meta Information about CodeProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642676(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642676
Middleton JOre JStolee KRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)Barriers for Students During Code Change ComprehensionProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering10.1145/3597503.3639227(1-13)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3597503.3639227
Liu BZhang HMa WKuang HYang YXu JGao SGao JRoychoudhury APaiva AAbreu RStorey M(2024)Mining Pull Requests to Detect Process Anomalies in Open Source Software DevelopmentProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering10.1145/3597503.3639196(1-13)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3597503.3639196
Tufano RDabić OMastropaolo ACiniselli MBavota G(2024)Code Review Automation: Strengths and Weaknesses of the State of the ArtIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2023.334817250:2(338-353)Online publication date: Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2023.3348172
Tuna ESeaman CTüzün E(2024)Do code reviews lead to fewer code smells?Journal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2024.112101215(112101)Online publication date: Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.112101
Huang FMadeira H(2024)Advancing modern code review effectiveness through human error mechanismsJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2024.112060214:COnline publication date: 1-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.jss.2024.112060
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents