测试驱动代码审查:一项实证研究

D. Spadini, Fabio Palomba, T. Baum, Stefan Hanenberg, M. Bruntink, Alberto Bacchelli
{"title":"测试驱动代码审查:一项实证研究","authors":"D. Spadini, Fabio Palomba, T. Baum, Stefan Hanenberg, M. Bruntink, Alberto Bacchelli","doi":"10.1109/ICSE.2019.00110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Test-Driven Code Review (TDR) is a code review practice in which a reviewer inspects a patch by examining the changed test code before the changed production code. Although this practice has been mentioned positively by practitioners in informal literature and interviews, there is no systematic knowledge of its effects, prevalence, problems, and advantages. In this paper, we aim at empirically understanding whether this practice has an effect on code review effectiveness and how developers' perceive TDR. We conduct (i) a controlled experiment with 93 developers that perform more than 150 reviews, and (ii) 9 semi-structured interviews and a survey with 103 respondents to gather information on how TDR is perceived. Key results from the experiment show that developers adopting TDR find the same proportion of defects in production code, but more in test code, at the expenses of fewer maintainability issues in production code. Furthermore, we found that most developers prefer to review production code as they deem it more critical and tests should follow from it. Moreover, general poor test code quality and no tool support hinder the adoption of TDR. Public preprint: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2551217, data and materials: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2553139","PeriodicalId":6736,"journal":{"name":"2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","volume":"423 1","pages":"1061-1072"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Test-Driven Code Review: An Empirical Study\",\"authors\":\"D. Spadini, Fabio Palomba, T. Baum, Stefan Hanenberg, M. Bruntink, Alberto Bacchelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICSE.2019.00110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Test-Driven Code Review (TDR) is a code review practice in which a reviewer inspects a patch by examining the changed test code before the changed production code. Although this practice has been mentioned positively by practitioners in informal literature and interviews, there is no systematic knowledge of its effects, prevalence, problems, and advantages. In this paper, we aim at empirically understanding whether this practice has an effect on code review effectiveness and how developers' perceive TDR. We conduct (i) a controlled experiment with 93 developers that perform more than 150 reviews, and (ii) 9 semi-structured interviews and a survey with 103 respondents to gather information on how TDR is perceived. Key results from the experiment show that developers adopting TDR find the same proportion of defects in production code, but more in test code, at the expenses of fewer maintainability issues in production code. Furthermore, we found that most developers prefer to review production code as they deem it more critical and tests should follow from it. Moreover, general poor test code quality and no tool support hinder the adoption of TDR. Public preprint: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2551217, data and materials: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2553139\",\"PeriodicalId\":6736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)\",\"volume\":\"423 1\",\"pages\":\"1061-1072\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00110\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

摘要

测试驱动代码审查(TDR)是一种代码审查实践,在这种实践中,审查者通过在更改生产代码之前检查更改的测试代码来检查补丁。尽管从业者在非正式文献和访谈中积极地提到了这种做法,但对其效果、流行程度、问题和优势却没有系统的了解。在本文中,我们的目标是通过经验来理解这种做法是否对代码审查有效性有影响,以及开发人员如何看待TDR。我们进行了(i)对93名开发人员进行了超过150次审查的对照实验,以及(ii)对103名受访者进行了9次半结构化访谈和调查,以收集有关如何看待TDR的信息。实验的关键结果表明,采用TDR的开发人员在生产代码中发现了相同比例的缺陷,但在测试代码中发现的缺陷更多,而在生产代码中发现的可维护性问题较少。此外,我们发现大多数开发人员更喜欢审查产品代码,因为他们认为它更重要,测试应该紧随其后。此外,普遍较差的测试代码质量和没有工具支持阻碍了TDR的采用。公开预印本:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2551217,数据资料:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2553139
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Test-Driven Code Review: An Empirical Study
Test-Driven Code Review (TDR) is a code review practice in which a reviewer inspects a patch by examining the changed test code before the changed production code. Although this practice has been mentioned positively by practitioners in informal literature and interviews, there is no systematic knowledge of its effects, prevalence, problems, and advantages. In this paper, we aim at empirically understanding whether this practice has an effect on code review effectiveness and how developers' perceive TDR. We conduct (i) a controlled experiment with 93 developers that perform more than 150 reviews, and (ii) 9 semi-structured interviews and a survey with 103 respondents to gather information on how TDR is perceived. Key results from the experiment show that developers adopting TDR find the same proportion of defects in production code, but more in test code, at the expenses of fewer maintainability issues in production code. Furthermore, we found that most developers prefer to review production code as they deem it more critical and tests should follow from it. Moreover, general poor test code quality and no tool support hinder the adoption of TDR. Public preprint: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2551217, data and materials: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2553139
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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