Survey on Pains and Best Practices of Code Review

Liming Dong, He Zhang, Lanxin Yang, Zhiluo Weng, Xin Yang, Xin Zhou, Zifan Pan
{"title":"Survey on Pains and Best Practices of Code Review","authors":"Liming Dong, He Zhang, Lanxin Yang, Zhiluo Weng, Xin Yang, Xin Zhou, Zifan Pan","doi":"10.1109/APSEC53868.2021.00055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite widespread agreement on the benefits of code review, its outcomes may not be as expected. The complications can undermine the purpose of the development process and even destroy the entire development cycle. Both academia and the industrial communities have invested a great deal of time and effort into code reviews. When a project team adheres to the best practices and creates a conducive environment, it is likely that code reviews could be conducted effectively and efficiently. By reviewing peer-reviewed scientific publications and gray literature on code review best practices, we summarized 57 practices as well as 19 code review pains that they address. Our review has shown that following best practices can ease the process of code review considerably. Multiple actionable practices are needed to support code review pains at the same time. To enable the adoption of best practices, OSS and industrial communities alike invest in integrating automatic techniques with code review tools. We hope that this review will provide researchers and practitioners with a comprehensive understanding of code review practices, aiding them in conducting code reviews more successfully.","PeriodicalId":143800,"journal":{"name":"2021 28th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2021 28th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC53868.2021.00055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Despite widespread agreement on the benefits of code review, its outcomes may not be as expected. The complications can undermine the purpose of the development process and even destroy the entire development cycle. Both academia and the industrial communities have invested a great deal of time and effort into code reviews. When a project team adheres to the best practices and creates a conducive environment, it is likely that code reviews could be conducted effectively and efficiently. By reviewing peer-reviewed scientific publications and gray literature on code review best practices, we summarized 57 practices as well as 19 code review pains that they address. Our review has shown that following best practices can ease the process of code review considerably. Multiple actionable practices are needed to support code review pains at the same time. To enable the adoption of best practices, OSS and industrial communities alike invest in integrating automatic techniques with code review tools. We hope that this review will provide researchers and practitioners with a comprehensive understanding of code review practices, aiding them in conducting code reviews more successfully.
代码审查的痛苦和最佳实践调查
尽管人们普遍认同代码审查的好处,但其结果可能并不如预期的那样。这些并发症会破坏开发过程的目的,甚至破坏整个开发周期。学术界和工业界都在代码审查上投入了大量的时间和精力。当一个项目团队坚持最佳实践并创建一个有利的环境时,代码审查很可能会有效地进行。通过回顾同行评审的科学出版物和关于代码评审最佳实践的灰色文献,我们总结了57个实践以及它们所处理的19个代码评审难点。我们的审查表明,遵循最佳实践可以在很大程度上简化代码审查的过程。同时需要多个可操作的实践来支持代码审查。为了采用最佳实践,OSS和工业社区都投资于将自动技术与代码审查工具集成在一起。我们希望这个审查将为研究人员和实践者提供对代码审查实践的全面理解,帮助他们更成功地进行代码审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信