Peer Code Review: Difference between revisions

From Federal Burro of Information
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:


; email pass-around
; 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 31: Line 50:
: developer error, design oversight, requirements mistake, QA error
: developer error, design oversight, requirements mistake, QA error


== Dunmoor 2000: Object Oriented Reviews ==
== Dunsmore 2000: Object Oriented Reviews ==


Three approaches:
Three approaches:
Line 40: Line 59:


checklist was the most effective and efficient at finding defects.
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 ==
== Bibliography ==

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