Cited By
View all- Kudrjavets GRastogi A(2023)Does code review speed matter for practitioners?Empirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-023-10401-z29:1Online publication date: 22-Nov-2023
What really matters in Code Review? A study about challenges and opportunities related to code review in industry
Article No.: 18, Pages 1 - 10
Abstract
Code review is a widely known process where developers assess each other’s codes. Since the Modern Code Review (MCR) activities bring countless opportunities for the industry, numerous aspects can be evaluated about the result of the MCR on the quality of the software. Based on that, we evaluated the perspective of software practitioners on code review by applying a survey to understand more about the aspects of the MCR in their software development routine and their impressions about how it brings quality to the software. Our results reaffirm that the MCR is seen not only as important but also is associated with the quality of the product. Besides that, we highlight the aspects of the MCR that bring benefits to the software and the development process. We also found results that highlight which aspects of the MCR can negatively impact the product and which factors allow the MCR to be executed properly. This research contributes to expanding the perspective of quality aspects, challenges, and benefits that can be obtained with the MCR process applied in the software development industry.
References
[1]
Alberto Bacchelli and Christian Bird. 2013. Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 712–721.
[2]
Amiangshu Bosu, Jeffrey C Carver, Christian Bird, Jonathan Orbeck, and Christopher Chockley. 2016. Process aspects and social dynamics of contemporary code review: Insights from open source development and industrial practice at microsoft. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 43, 1 (2016), 56–75.
[3]
Amiangshu Bosu, Michaela Greiler, and Christian Bird. 2015. Characteristics of useful code reviews: An empirical study at microsoft. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE, 146–156.
[4]
Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
[5]
Atacílio Cunha, Tayana Conte, and Bruno Gadelha. 2021. Code Review is just reviewing code? A qualitative study with practitioners in industry. In Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES ’21). https://doi.org/10.1145/3474624.3477063
[6]
Felipe Ebert, Fernando Castor, Nicole Novielli, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2019. Confusion in code reviews: Reasons, impacts, and coping strategies. In 2019 IEEE 26th international conference on software analysis, evolution and reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 49–60.
[7]
M. E. Fagan. 1976. Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal 15, 3 (1976), 182–211. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.153.0182
[8]
Dror G Feitelson, Eitan Frachtenberg, and Kent L Beck. 2013. Development and deployment at facebook. IEEE Internet Computing 17, 4 (2013), 8–17.
[9]
Yujuan Jiang, Bram Adams, and Daniel M German. 2013. Will my patch make it? and how fast? case study on the linux kernel. In 2013 10th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR). IEEE, 101–110.
[10]
Laura MacLeod, Michaela Greiler, Margaret-Anne Storey, Christian Bird, and Jacek Czerwonka. 2017. Code reviewing in the trenches: Challenges and best practices. IEEE Software 35, 4 (2017), 34–42.
[11]
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. 192–201.
[12]
Sumaira Nazir, Nargis Fatima, and Suriayati Chuprat. 2020. Situational factors for modern code review to support software engineers’ sustainability. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 11, 1(2020), 498–504.
[13]
David Lorge Parnas and Mark Lawford. 2003. The role of inspection in software quality assurance. IEEE Transactions on Software engineering 29, 8 (2003), 674–676.
[14]
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. 202–212.
[15]
Shade Ruangwan, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Akinori Ihara, and Kenichi Matsumoto. 2019. The impact of human factors on the participation decision of reviewers in modern code review. Empirical Software Engineering 24, 2 (2019), 973–1016.
[16]
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. 181–190.
[17]
Carolyn B. Seaman. 1999. Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on software engineering 25, 4 (1999), 557–572.
[18]
Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane McIntosh, Ahmed E Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2015. Investigating code review practices in defective files: An empirical study of the qt system. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. IEEE, 168–179.
[19]
Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane McIntosh, Ahmed E Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2017. Review participation in modern code review. Empirical Software Engineering 22, 2 (2017), 768–817.
Index Terms
- What really matters in Code Review? A study about challenges and opportunities related to code review in industry
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Code Review is just reviewing code? A qualitative study with practitioners in industry
SBES '21: Proceedings of the XXXV Brazilian Symposium on Software EngineeringCode review is essentially the process of assessing code made by a developer from the perspective of others. Considering the Modern Code Review (MCR) activities within the industry, many opportunities can be evaluated with the practitioners that adopt ...
Code review quality: how developers see it
ICSE '16: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software EngineeringIn 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 ...
Towards refactoring-aware code review
CHASE 2014: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software EngineeringSoftware developers review changes to a code base to prevent new bugs from being introduced. However, some parts of a change are more likely to introduce bugs than others, and thus deserve more care in reviewing. In this short paper, we discuss our ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2021
320 pages
ISBN:9781450395533
DOI:10.1145/3493244
- Editors:
- Rodrigo Santos,
- Sandro Ronaldo Bezerra Oliveira,
- Ismayle de Sousa Santos,
- Sabrina Marczak,
- Davi Viana,
- Edna Dias Canedo,
- Adriano Bessa Albuquerque,
- Marco Paludo,
- Ana Regina Rocha,
- Ivan Machado,
- Uirá Kulesza,
- Vinícius Garcia,
- Gleison Santos,
- Natasha Valentim,
- Monalessa Barcellos,
- Adriano Bessa Albuquerque,
- Ana Regina Cavalcanti da Rocha,
- Gleison Santos,
- Ivan Machado,
- Monalessa Perini Barcellos,
- Sheila Reinehr,
- Tayana Conte,
- Awdren Fontão,
- Crescêncio Lima
Copyright © 2021 ACM.
© 2021 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 14 December 2021
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
- Samsung Eletronics of Amazonia Ltda
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
Conference
SBQS '21
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 35 of 99 submissions, 35%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 117Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)9
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 09 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Kudrjavets GRastogi A(2023)Does code review speed matter for practitioners?Empirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-023-10401-z29:1Online publication date: 22-Nov-2023
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format