CORMS:一种基于GitHub和Gerrit的混合代码审查推荐方法,用于现代代码审查

Prahar Pandya, Saurabh Tiwari
{"title":"CORMS:一种基于GitHub和Gerrit的混合代码审查推荐方法,用于现代代码审查","authors":"Prahar Pandya, Saurabh Tiwari","doi":"10.1145/3540250.3549115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modern Code review (MCR) techniques are widely adopted in both open-source software platforms and organizations to ensure the quality of their software products. However, the selection of reviewers for code review is cumbersome with the increasing size of development teams. The recommendation of inappropriate reviewers for code review can take more time and effort to complete the task effectively. In this paper, we extended the baseline of reviewers' recommendation framework - RevFinder - to handle issues with newly created files, retired reviewers, the external validity of results, and the accuracies of the state-of-the-art RevFinder. Our proposed hybrid approach, CORMS, works on similarity analysis to compute similarities among file paths, projects/sub-projects, author information, and prediction models to recommend reviewers based on the subject of the change. We conducted a detailed analysis on the widely used 20 projects of both Gerrit and GitHub to compare our results with RevFinder. Our results reveal that on average, CORMS, can achieve top-1, top-3, top-5, and top-10 accuracies, and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) of 45.1%, 67.5%, 74.6%, 79.9% and 0.58 for the 20 projects, consequently improves the RevFinder approach by 44.9%, 34.4%, 20.8%, 12.3% and 18.4%, respectively.","PeriodicalId":68155,"journal":{"name":"软件产业与工程","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CORMS: a GitHub and Gerrit based hybrid code reviewer recommendation approach for modern code review\",\"authors\":\"Prahar Pandya, Saurabh Tiwari\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3540250.3549115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Modern Code review (MCR) techniques are widely adopted in both open-source software platforms and organizations to ensure the quality of their software products. However, the selection of reviewers for code review is cumbersome with the increasing size of development teams. The recommendation of inappropriate reviewers for code review can take more time and effort to complete the task effectively. In this paper, we extended the baseline of reviewers' recommendation framework - RevFinder - to handle issues with newly created files, retired reviewers, the external validity of results, and the accuracies of the state-of-the-art RevFinder. Our proposed hybrid approach, CORMS, works on similarity analysis to compute similarities among file paths, projects/sub-projects, author information, and prediction models to recommend reviewers based on the subject of the change. We conducted a detailed analysis on the widely used 20 projects of both Gerrit and GitHub to compare our results with RevFinder. Our results reveal that on average, CORMS, can achieve top-1, top-3, top-5, and top-10 accuracies, and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) of 45.1%, 67.5%, 74.6%, 79.9% and 0.58 for the 20 projects, consequently improves the RevFinder approach by 44.9%, 34.4%, 20.8%, 12.3% and 18.4%, respectively.\",\"PeriodicalId\":68155,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"软件产业与工程\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"软件产业与工程\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1089\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3540250.3549115\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"软件产业与工程","FirstCategoryId":"1089","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3540250.3549115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

现代代码审查(MCR)技术在开源软件平台和组织中被广泛采用,以确保其软件产品的质量。然而,随着开发团队规模的增加,选择代码审查人员变得很麻烦。为代码评审推荐不合适的评审人员会花费更多的时间和精力来有效地完成任务。在本文中,我们扩展了审稿人推荐框架RevFinder的基线,以处理新创建的文件、退休审稿人、结果的外部有效性以及最先进的RevFinder的准确性等问题。我们提出的混合方法CORMS,通过相似性分析来计算文件路径、项目/子项目、作者信息和预测模型之间的相似性,从而根据变更的主题推荐审稿人。我们对Gerrit和GitHub中被广泛使用的20个项目进行了详细的分析,将我们的结果与RevFinder进行比较。结果表明,平均而言,CORMS在20个项目中可以达到top-1、top-3、top-5和top-10的准确率,平均MRR分别为45.1%、67.5%、74.6%、79.9%和0.58,分别比RevFinder方法提高44.9%、34.4%、20.8%、12.3%和18.4%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CORMS: a GitHub and Gerrit based hybrid code reviewer recommendation approach for modern code review
Modern Code review (MCR) techniques are widely adopted in both open-source software platforms and organizations to ensure the quality of their software products. However, the selection of reviewers for code review is cumbersome with the increasing size of development teams. The recommendation of inappropriate reviewers for code review can take more time and effort to complete the task effectively. In this paper, we extended the baseline of reviewers' recommendation framework - RevFinder - to handle issues with newly created files, retired reviewers, the external validity of results, and the accuracies of the state-of-the-art RevFinder. Our proposed hybrid approach, CORMS, works on similarity analysis to compute similarities among file paths, projects/sub-projects, author information, and prediction models to recommend reviewers based on the subject of the change. We conducted a detailed analysis on the widely used 20 projects of both Gerrit and GitHub to compare our results with RevFinder. Our results reveal that on average, CORMS, can achieve top-1, top-3, top-5, and top-10 accuracies, and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) of 45.1%, 67.5%, 74.6%, 79.9% and 0.58 for the 20 projects, consequently improves the RevFinder approach by 44.9%, 34.4%, 20.8%, 12.3% and 18.4%, respectively.
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
676
×
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