![]() 2017a), find defects (Baum and Schneider 2016), and transfer knowledge (Bacchelli and Bird 2013). 2017) to improve software quality (Baum et al. 2018) software engineering practice in which one or more reviewers inspect a code change written by a peer (Bacchelli and Bird 2013 MacLeod et al. Ĭode review is a widely used (Rigby and Bird 2013 Bacchelli and Bird 2013 Gousios et al. The checklist has the potential to lower developers’ cognitive load, but higher cognitive load led to better performance possibly due to the generally low effectiveness and efficiency of the study participants. However, we did not identify a strong relationship between the guidance provided and code review performance. Our results indicate that the guided checklist is a more effective aid for a simple review,while the checklist supports reviewers’ efficiency and effectiveness in a complex task. The majority of the participants are novice reviewers with low or no code review experience. While the checklist is a simple form of signaling (a method to reduce cognitive load), the guided checklist incorporates further methods to lower cognitive demands of the task such as segmenting and weeding. The guided checklist was developed to provide an explicit reviewing strategy to developers. Participants are assigned to one of three treatments: ad hoc reviewing, checklist, and guided checklist. We employ an experimental design where professional developers have to perform three code review tasks. Moreover, we verify if review guidance lowers developers’ cognitive load. In the study presented in this work, we test whether providing developers with explicit reviewing strategies improves their review effectiveness and efficiency. ![]() Therefore, understanding code review and how to improve reviewers’ performance is paramount. Code review is an important process in software engineering – yet, a very expensive one.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |