Peer Code Review: Difference between revisions

From Federal Burro of Information
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
;formal inspection
;formal inspection
: author
: author
; reveiwer (who ndoes the explained based on the review, no author input till meeting)
: reveiwer (who ndoes the explained based on the review, no author input till meeting)
; observer
: observer
* over-the-shoulder
 
* pair prog
; over-the-shoulder
* tool assisted: file gathering, combined display: diff comments defects, automated metric collection, review enforcement,
: one walks through the code while the other watches.
* email pass around
 
; pair programming
: like in XP/agile
 
; tool assisted
: file gathering
: combined display: diff comments defects
: automated metric collection
: review enforcement,
 
; email pass-around
 
== phases ==
 
;planning
: files
: invites
 
;inspection
: final defects
: comment and chat
 
; rework
: fix defects
: upload fixes
 
; complete
: check files into version control.
 
where is testing?


== Code Errors ==
== Code Errors ==
Line 14: Line 43:
;severity
;severity
: major, minor
: major, minor
;type
;type
: algorithm, documentation, data-usage, error-handling, input, output
: algorithm, documentation, data-usage, error-handling, input, output
; phase-injection
; phase-injection
: developer error, design oversight, requirements mistake, QA error
: developer error, design oversight, requirements mistake, QA error


== biblio ==
== Dunsmore 2000: Object Oriented Reviews ==
 
Three approaches:
 
# checklist oriented
# systematic review
# use-case
 
checklist was the most effective and efficient at finding defects.
 
reviews should not take longer than 1 hour
 
== Things to look up ==
 
* Path analysis
* beta coefficient from a logarithmic least-sqares analysis is used as the measure of pair-wise correlation strength ( consider also confidence rate ~ 0.01 , P value ? )
 
== Bibliography ==


best kept xsecrets of peer code review
* Best Kept Secrets of Peer Code Review - Jason Cohen 2006
* code inspection - michael fagan ibm 1974 (29pgs)
* Code Inspection - Michael Fagan IBM 1974 (29 pages)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_inspection


[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Latest revision as of 16:48, 18 November 2010

Types of code reveiw

formal inspection
author
reveiwer (who ndoes the explained based on the review, no author input till meeting)
observer
over-the-shoulder
one walks through the code while the other watches.
pair programming
like in XP/agile
tool assisted
file gathering
combined display: diff comments defects
automated metric collection
review enforcement,
email pass-around

phases

planning
files
invites
inspection
final defects
comment and chat
rework
fix defects
upload fixes
complete
check files into version control.

where is testing?

Code Errors

severity
major, minor
type
algorithm, documentation, data-usage, error-handling, input, output
phase-injection
developer error, design oversight, requirements mistake, QA error

Dunsmore 2000: Object Oriented Reviews

Three approaches:

  1. checklist oriented
  2. systematic review
  3. use-case

checklist was the most effective and efficient at finding defects.

reviews should not take longer than 1 hour

Things to look up

  • Path analysis
  • beta coefficient from a logarithmic least-sqares analysis is used as the measure of pair-wise correlation strength ( consider also confidence rate ~ 0.01 , P value ? )

Bibliography