Caitlin Sadowski
Alberto Bacchelli
ABSTRACT
Employing lightweight, tool-based code review of code changes (aka modern code review) has become the norm for a wide variety of open-source and industrial systems. In this paper, we make an exploratory investigation of modern code review at Google. Google introduced code review early on and evolved it over the years; our study sheds light on why Google introduced this practice and analyzes its current status, after the process has been refined through decades of code changes and millions of code reviews. By means of 12 interviews, a survey with 44 respondents, and the analysis of review logs for 9 million reviewed changes, we investigate motivations behind code review at Google, current practices, and developers' satisfaction and challenges.
- 2017. Appendix to this paper. https://goo.gl/dP4ekg. (2017).Google Scholar
- A.F. Ackerman, L.S. Buchwald, and F.H. Lewski. 1989. Software inspections: An effective verification process. IEEE Software 6, 3 (1989), 31--36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A.F. Ackerman, P.J. Fowler, and R.G. Ebenau. 1984. Software inspections and the industrial production of software. In Symposium on Software validation: inspection-testing-verification-alternatives. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alberto Bacchelli and Christian Bird. 2013. Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In ICSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vipin Balachandran. 2013. Reducing Human Effort and Improving Quality in Peer Code Reviews Using Automatic Static Analysis and Reviewer Recommendation. In ICSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mike Barnett, Christian Bird, João Brunet, and Shuvendu K Lahiri. 2015. Helping developers help themselves: Automatic decomposition of code review changesets. In ICSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V.R. Basili, F. Shull, and F. Lanubile. 1999. Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Trans. on Software Eng. 25, 4 (1999), 456--473. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Olga Baysal, Oleksii Kononenko, Reid Holmes, and Michael W Godfrey. 2013. The influence of non-technical factors on code review. In WCRE.Google Scholar
- Christian Bird, Nachiappan Nagappan, Brendan Murphy, Harald Gall, and Premkumar Devanbu. 2011. Don't touch my code!: examining the effects of ownership on software quality. In FSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Amiangshu Bosu and Jeffrey C Carver. 2013. Impact of peer code review on peer impression formation: A survey. In ESEM.Google Scholar
- Amiangshu Bosu, Michaela Greiler, and Christian Bird. 2015. Characteristics of useful code reviews: an empirical study at Microsoft. In MSR. Google ScholarDigital Library
- chromium 2016. Chromium developer guidelines. https://www.chromium.org/developers/contributing-code. (August 2016).Google Scholar
- J.W. Creswell. 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Jacek Czerwonka, Michaela Greiler, and Jack Tilford. 2015. Code Reviews Do Not Find Bugs: How the Current Code Review Best Practice Slows Us Down. In ICSE (SEIP). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martín Dias, Alberto Bacchelli, Georgios Gousios, Damien Cassou, and Stéphane Ducasse. 2015. Untangling fine-grained code changes. In SANER.Google Scholar
- M.E. Fagan. 1976. Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal 15, 3 (1976), 182--211. Google ScholarDigital Library
- gerrit 2016. https://www.gerritcodereview.com/. (August 2016).Google Scholar
- githubpull 2016. GitHub pull request process. https://help.github.com/articles/using-pull-requests/. (2016).Google Scholar
- Barney G Glaser and Anselm L Strauss. 2009. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction Books.Google Scholar
- Georgios Gousios, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2016. Work Practices and Challenges in Pull-Based Development: The Contributor's Perspective. In ICSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Georgios Gousios, Andy Zaidman, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Arie van Deursen. 2015. Work Practices and Challenges in Pull-Based Development: The Integrator's Perspective. In ICSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Toshiki Hirao, Akinori Ihara, Yuki Ueda, Passakorn Phannachitta, and Ken-ichi Matsumoto. 2016. The Impact of a Low Level of Agreement Among Reviewers in a Code Review Process. In IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harrie Jansen. 2010. The logic of qualitative survey research and its position in the field of social research methods. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, Vol. 11.Google Scholar
- Yujuan Jiang, Bram Adams, and Daniel M German. 2013. Will my patch make it? and how fast?: Case study on the linux kernel. In MSR. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sami Kollanus and Jussi Koskinen. 2009. Survey of software inspection research. The Open Software Engineering Journal 3, 1 (2009), 15--34.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Oleksii Kononenko, Olga Baysal, and Michael W Godfrey. 2016. Code review quality: How developers see it. In ICSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew B Miles and A Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.Google Scholar
- Audris Mockus and James D Herbsleb. 2002. Expertise browser: a quantitative approach to identifying expertise. In ICSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- phabricator 2016. Meet Phabricator, The Witty Code Review Tool Built Inside Facebook. https://techcrunch.com/2011/08/07/oh-what-noble-scribe-hath-penned-these-words/. (August 2016).Google Scholar
- Rachel Potvin and Josh Levenburg. 2016. Why Google Stores Billions of Lines of Code in a Single Repository. Commun. ACM (2016). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Teade Punter, Marcus Ciolkowski, Bernd Freimut, and Isabel John. 2003. Conducting on-line surveys in software engineering. In Empirical Software Engineering. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Rigby, B. Cleary, F. Painchaud, M.A. Storey, and D. German. 2012. Open Source Peer Review---Lessons and Recommendations for Closed Source. IEEE Software (2012).Google Scholar
- Peter C Rigby and Christian Bird. 2013. Convergent software peer review practices. In FSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter C. Rigby, Daniel M. German, Laura Cowen, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2014. Peer Review on Open-Source Software Projects: Parameters, Statistical Models, and Theory. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23, 4, Article 35 (2014). Google ScholarDigital Library
- David L Sackett. 1979. Bias in analytic research. Journal of chronic diseases 32, 1-2 (1979), 51--63.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Caitlin Sadowski, Jeffrey van Gogh, Ciera Jaspan, Emma Söderberg, and Collin Winter. 2015. Tricorder: building a program analysis ecosystem. In ICSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Shull and C. Seaman. 2008. Inspecting the History of Inspections: An Example of Evidence-Based Technology Diffusion. IEEE Software 25, 1 (2008), 88--90. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andrew Sutherland and Gina Venolia. 2009. Can peer code reviews be exploited for later information needs?. In ICSE.Google Scholar
- William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas. 1928. The methodology of behavior study. The child in America: Behavior problems and programs (1928), 553--576.Google Scholar
- Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane McIntosh, Ahmed E Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2016. Revisiting code ownership and its relationship with software quality in the scope of modern code review. In ICSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patanamon Thongtanunam, Shane McIntosh, Ahmed E Hassan, and Hajimu Iida. 2017. Review participation in modern code review. Empirical Software Engineering 22, 2 (2017), 768--817. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patanamon Thongtanunam, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Norihiro Yoshida, Hajimu Iida, and Ken-ichi Matsumoto. 2015. Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for modern code review. In SANER.Google Scholar
- Motahareh Bahrami Zanjani, Huzefa Kagdi, and Christian Bird. 2016. Automatically recommending peer reviewers in modern code review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 42, 6 (2016), 530--543. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Minghui Zhou and Audris Mockus. 2010. Developer Fluency: Achieving True Mastery in Software Projects. In FSE. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Modern code review: a case study at google
Recommendations
Code smells detection via modern code review: a study of the OpenStack and Qt communities
AbstractCode review plays an important role in software quality control. A typical review process involves a careful check of a piece of code in an attempt to detect and locate defects and other quality issues/violations. One type of issue that may impact ...
Code Bad Smells: a review of current knowledge
Fowler et al. identified 22 Code Bad Smells to direct the effective refactoring of code. These are increasingly being taken up by software engineers. However, the empirical basis of using Code Bad Smells to direct refactoring and to address ‘trouble’ in ...
A review of code smell mining techniques
Over the past 15years, researchers presented numerous techniques and tools for mining code smells. It is imperative to classify, compare, and evaluate existing techniques and tools used for the detection of code smells because of their varying features ...
Comments