Code review

Last updated

Code review (sometimes referred to as peer review) is a software quality assurance activity in which one or more people check a program, mainly by viewing and reading parts of its source code, either after implementation or as an interruption of implementation. At least one of the persons must not have authored the code. The persons performing the checking, excluding the author, are called "reviewers". [1] [2]

Contents

Although direct discovery of quality problems is often the main goal, [3] code reviews are usually performed to reach a combination of goals: [4] [5]

This definition of code review distinguishes it from related software quality assurance techniques, such as static code analysis, self checks, testing, and pair programming. In static code analysis the main checking is performed by an automated program, in self checks only the author checks the code, in testing the execution of the code is an integral part, and pair programming is performed continuously during implementation and not as a separate step. [1]

Review types

There are many variations of code review processes, some of which are detailed below. Additional review types are part of IEEE 1028.

IEEE 1028-2008 lists the following review types: [6]

Inspection (formal)

Historically, the first code review process that was studied and described in detail was called "Inspection" by its inventor, Michael Fagan. [7] This Fagan inspection is a formal process which involves a careful and detailed execution with multiple participants and multiple phases. Formal code reviews are the traditional method of review, in which software developers attend a series of meetings and review code line by line, usually using printed copies of the material. Formal inspections are extremely thorough and have been proven effective at finding defects in the code under review. [7]

Regular change-based code review (Walk-throughs)

In recent years,[ when? ] many industry teams have introduced a more lightweight type of code review in which the scope of each review is based on the changes to the codebase performed in a ticket, user story, commit, or some other unit of work. [8] [3] Furthermore, there are rules or conventions that embed the review task into the development process (e.g., "every ticket must be reviewed"), commonly as part of a pull request, instead of explicitly planning each review. Such a review process is called "regular, change-based code review". [1] There are many variations of this basic process. A survey among 240 development teams from 2017 found that 90% of the teams use a review process that is based on changes (if they use reviews at all), and 60% use regular, change-based code review. [3] Also, most large software corporations such as Microsoft, [9] Google, [10] and Facebook follow a change-based code review process.

Efficiency and effectiveness of reviews

Capers Jones' ongoing analysis of over 12,000 software development projects showed that the latent defect discovery rate of formal inspection is in the 60-65% range. For informal inspection, the figure is less than 50%. The latent defect discovery rate for most forms of testing is about 30%. [11] [12] A code review case study published in the book Best Kept Secrets of Peer Code Review contradicted the Capers Jones study, [11] finding that lightweight reviews can uncover as many bugs as formal reviews, but were faster and more cost-effective. [13]

The types of defects detected in code reviews have also been studied. Empirical studies provide evidence that up to 75% of code review defects affect software evolvability/maintainability rather than functionality, [14] [15] [4] [16] suggesting that code reviews are an excellent tool for software companies with long product or system life cycles. [17] This also means that less than 15% of the issues discussed in code reviews are related to bugs. [18]

Guidelines

The effectiveness of code review was found to depend on the review speed. Code review rates should be between 200 and 400 lines of code per hour. [19] [20] [21] [22] Inspecting and reviewing more than a few hundred lines of code per hour for critical software (such as safety critical embedded software) may be too fast to find errors. [19] [23]

Supporting tools

Static code analysis software lessens the task of reviewing large chunks of code on the developer by systematically checking source code for known vulnerabilities and defect types. [24] A 2012 study by VDC Research reports that 17.6% of the embedded software engineers surveyed currently use automated tools to support peer code review and 23.7% expect to use them within two years. [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

In computer science, static program analysis is the analysis of computer programs performed without executing them, in contrast with dynamic program analysis, which is performed on programs during their execution.

Software testing is the act of examining the artifacts and the behavior of the software under test by validation and verification. Software testing can also provide an objective, independent view of the software to allow the business to appreciate and understand the risks of software implementation. Test techniques include, but are not necessarily limited to:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Software architecture</span> High level structures of a software system

Software architecture is the set of structures needed to reason about a software system and the discipline of creating such structures and systems. Each structure comprises software elements, relations among them, and properties of both elements and relations.

Requirements engineering (RE) is the process of defining, documenting, and maintaining requirements in the engineering design process. It is a common role in systems engineering and software engineering.

A Fagan inspection is a process of trying to find defects in documents during various phases of the software development process. It is named after Michael Fagan, who is credited with the invention of formal software inspections.

In the context of software engineering, software quality refers to two related but distinct notions:

Software quality assurance (SQA) is a means and practice of monitoring all software engineering processes, methods, and work products to ensure compliance against defined standards. It may include ensuring conformance to standards or models, such as ISO/IEC 9126, SPICE or CMMI.

Software visualization or software visualisation refers to the visualization of information of and related to software systems—either the architecture of its source code or metrics of their runtime behavior—and their development process by means of static, interactive or animated 2-D or 3-D visual representations of their structure, execution, behavior, and evolution.

Software assurance (SwA) is a critical process in software development that ensures the reliability, safety, and security of software products. It involves a variety of activities, including requirements analysis, design reviews, code inspections, testing, and formal verification. One crucial component of software assurance is secure coding practices, which follow industry-accepted standards and best practices, such as those outlined by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) in their CERT Secure Coding Standards (SCS).

In software engineering, a walkthrough or walk-through is a form of software peer review "in which a designer or programmer leads members of the development team and other interested parties through a software product, and the participants ask questions and make comments about possible errors, violation of development standards, and other problems". The reviews are also performed by assessors, specialists, etc. and are suggested or mandatory as required by norms and standards.

A software regression is a type of software bug where a feature that has worked before stops working. This may happen after changes are applied to the software's source code, including the addition of new features and bug fixes. They may also be introduced by changes to the environment in which the software is running, such as system upgrades, system patching or a change to daylight saving time. A software performance regression is a situation where the software still functions correctly, but performs more slowly or uses more memory or resources than before. Various types of software regressions have been identified in practice, including the following:

Quality engineering is the discipline of engineering concerned with the principles and practice of product and service quality assurance and control. In software development, it is the management, development, operation and maintenance of IT systems and enterprise architectures with a high quality standard.

Search-based software engineering (SBSE) applies metaheuristic search techniques such as genetic algorithms, simulated annealing and tabu search to software engineering problems. Many activities in software engineering can be stated as optimization problems. Optimization techniques of operations research such as linear programming or dynamic programming are often impractical for large scale software engineering problems because of their computational complexity or their assumptions on the problem structure. Researchers and practitioners use metaheuristic search techniques, which impose little assumptions on the problem structure, to find near-optimal or "good-enough" solutions.

In computer programming and software development, debugging is the process of finding and resolving bugs within computer programs, software, or systems.

Software analytics is the analytics specific to the domain of software systems taking into account source code, static and dynamic characteristics as well as related processes of their development and evolution. It aims at describing, monitoring, predicting, and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of software engineering throughout the software lifecycle, in particular during software development and software maintenance. The data collection is typically done by mining software repositories, but can also be achieved by collecting user actions or production data.

Development testing is a software development process that involves synchronized application of a broad spectrum of defect prevention and detection strategies in order to reduce software development risks, time, and costs.

Software Intelligence is insight into the inner workings and structural condition of software assets produced by software designed to analyze database structure, software framework and source code to better understand and control complex software systems in Information Technology environments. Similarly to Business Intelligence (BI), Software Intelligence is produced by a set of software tools and techniques for the mining of data and the software's inner-structure. Results are automatically produced and feed a knowledge base containing technical documentation and make it available to all to be used by business and software stakeholders to make informed decisions, measure the efficiency of software development organizations, communicate about the software health, prevent software catastrophes.

Automatic bug-fixing is the automatic repair of software bugs without the intervention of a human programmer. It is also commonly referred to as automatic patch generation, automatic bug repair, or automatic program repair. The typical goal of such techniques is to automatically generate correct patches to eliminate bugs in software programs without causing software regression.

CodeSonar is a static code analysis tool from CodeSecure, Inc. CodeSonar is used to find and fix bugs and security vulnerabilities in source and binary code. It performs whole-program, inter-procedural analysis with abstract interpretation on C, C++, C#, Java, as well as x86 and ARM binary executables and libraries. CodeSonar is typically used by teams developing or assessing software to track their quality or security weaknesses. CodeSonar supports Linux, BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, MacOS and Windows hosts and embedded operating systems and compilers.

Static application security testing (SAST) is used to secure software by reviewing the source code of the software to identify sources of vulnerabilities. Although the process of statically analyzing the source code has existed as long as computers have existed, the technique spread to security in the late 90s and the first public discussion of SQL injection in 1998 when Web applications integrated new technologies like JavaScript and Flash.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Baum, Tobias; Liskin, Olga; Niklas, Kai; Schneider, Kurt (2016). "A Faceted Classification Scheme for Change-Based Industrial Code Review Processes". 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS). pp. 74–85. doi:10.1109/QRS.2016.19. ISBN   978-1-5090-4127-5. S2CID   9569007.
  2. ↑ Kolawa, Adam; Huizinga, Dorota (2007). Automated Defect Prevention: Best Practices in Software Management. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press. p. 260. ISBN   978-0-470-04212-0.
  3. 1 2 3 Baum, Tobias; Leßmann, Hendrik; Schneider, Kurt (2017). "The Choice of Code Review Process: A Survey on the State of the Practice". Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 10611. pp. 111–127. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_9. ISBN   978-3-319-69925-7.
  4. 1 2 Bacchelli, A; Bird, C (May 2013). "Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review" (PDF). Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference On Software Engineering (ICSE 2013). Retrieved 2015-09-02.
  5. ↑ Baum, Tobias; Liskin, Olga; Niklas, Kai; Schneider, Kurt (2016). "Factors Influencing Code Review Processes in Industry". Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering - FSE 2016. pp. 85–96. doi:10.1145/2950290.2950323. ISBN   9781450342186. S2CID   15467294.
  6. ↑ IEEE Standard for Software Reviews and Audits. IEEE STD 1028-2008. August 2008. pp. 1–53. doi:10.1109/ieeestd.2008.4601584. ISBN   978-0-7381-5768-9.
  7. 1 2 Fagan, Michael (1976). "Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development". IBM Systems Journal. 15 (3): 182–211. doi:10.1147/sj.153.0182.
  8. ↑ Rigby, Peter; Bird, Christian (2013). "Convergent contemporary software peer review practices". Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. pp. 202–212. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.641.1046 . doi:10.1145/2491411.2491444. ISBN   9781450322379. S2CID   11163811.
  9. ↑ MacLeod, Laura; Greiler, Michaela; Storey, Margaret-Anne; Bird, Christian; Czerwonka, Jacek (2017). "Code Reviewing in the Trenches: Challenges and Best Practices" (PDF). IEEE Software. 35 (4): 34. doi:10.1109/MS.2017.265100500. S2CID   49651487 . Retrieved 2020-11-28.
  10. ↑ Sadowski, Caitlin; Söderberg, Emma; Church, Luke; Sipko, Michal; Baachelli, Alberto (2018). "Modern code review: A case study at google". Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice. pp. 181–190. doi: 10.1145/3183519.3183525 . ISBN   9781450356596. S2CID   49217999.
  11. 1 2 Jones, Capers (June 2008). "Measuring Defect Potentials and Defect Removal Efficiency" (PDF). Crosstalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-08-06. Retrieved 2010-10-05.
  12. ↑ Jones, Capers; Ebert, Christof (April 2009). "Embedded Software: Facts, Figures, and Future". Computer. 42 (4): 42–52. doi:10.1109/MC.2009.118. S2CID   14008049.
  13. ↑ Jason Cohen (2006). Best Kept Secrets of Peer Code Review (Modern Approach. Practical Advice.) . Smart Bear Inc. ISBN   978-1-59916-067-2.
  14. ↑ Czerwonka, Jacek; Greiler, Michaela; Tilford, Jack (2015). "Code Reviews do Not Find Bugs. How the Current Code Review Best Practice Slows Us Down". 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (PDF). Vol. 2. pp. 27–28. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2015.131. ISBN   978-1-4799-1934-5. S2CID   29074469 . Retrieved 2020-11-28.
  15. ↑ Mantyla, M.V.; Lassenius, C. (2009). "What Types of Defects Are Really Discovered in Code Reviews?" (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 35 (3): 430–448. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.188.5757 . doi:10.1109/TSE.2008.71. S2CID   17570489 . Retrieved 2012-03-21.
  16. ↑ Beller, M; Bacchelli, A; Zaidman, A; Juergens, E (May 2014). "Modern code reviews in open-source projects: which problems do they fix?" (PDF). Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2014). Retrieved 2015-09-02.
  17. ↑ Siy, Harvey; Votta, Lawrence (2004-12-01). "Does the Modern Code Inspection Have Value?" (PDF). unomaha.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-28. Retrieved 2015-02-17.
  18. ↑ Bosu, Amiangshu; Greiler, Michaela; Bird, Chris (May 2015). "Characteristics of Useful Code Reviews: An Empirical Study at Microsoft" (PDF). 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
  19. 1 2 Kemerer, C.F.; Paulk, M.C. (2009-04-17). "The Impact of Design and Code Reviews on Software Quality: An Empirical Study Based on PSP Data". IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 35 (4): 534–550. doi:10.1109/TSE.2009.27. hdl: 11059/14085 . S2CID   14432409.
  20. ↑ "Code Review Metrics". Open Web Application Security Project. Archived from the original on 2015-10-09. Retrieved 9 October 2015.
  21. ↑ "Best Practices for Peer Code Review". Smart Bear. Smart Bear Software. Archived from the original on 2015-10-09. Retrieved 9 October 2015.
  22. ↑ Bisant, David B. (October 1989). "A Two-Person Inspection Method to Improve Programming Productivity". IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 15 (10): 1294–1304. doi:10.1109/TSE.1989.559782. S2CID   14921429 . Retrieved 9 October 2015.
  23. ↑ Ganssle, Jack (February 2010). "A Guide to Code Inspections" (PDF). The Ganssle Group. Retrieved 2010-10-05.
  24. ↑ Balachandran, Vipin (2013). "Reducing human effort and improving quality in peer code reviews using automatic static analysis and reviewer recommendation". 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). pp. 931–940. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606642. ISBN   978-1-4673-3076-3. S2CID   15823436.
  25. ↑ VDC Research (2012-02-01). "Automated Defect Prevention for Embedded Software Quality". VDC Research. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.