Peer Code Review: Difference between revisions
From Federal Burro of Information
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
: developer error, design oversight, requirements mistake, QA error | : developer error, design oversight, requirements mistake, QA error | ||
== | == Dunsmore 2000: Object Oriented Reviews == | ||
Three approaches: | Three approaches: | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
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 | |||
== Bibliography == | == Bibliography == | ||
Revision as of 21:07, 17 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
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:
- checklist oriented
- systematic review
- use-case
checklist was the most effective and efficient at finding defects.
reviews should not take longer than 1 hour
Bibliography
- Best Kept Secrets of Peer Code Review - Jason Cohen 2006
- Code Inspection - Michael Fagan IBM 1974 (29 pages)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_inspection
