The Effectiveness of Code Reviews on Improving Software Quality: An Empirical Study
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study intends to investigate how well code reviews contribute to higher software quality. A group of developers working on the study examine source code to find flaws, improve readability, and guarantee compliance with coding standards. The research on the effects of code review on defect discovery, defect prevention, and code maintainability is given together with a thorough overview of the literature on code review and software quality. This study has shown that code review is a highly efficient way to raise the caliber of software. According to the study of several studies and trials, code review significantly reduces flaws and improves code maintainability. Code review helps to increase client satisfaction by making sure the product satisfies their needs. The goal of this study is to highlight the value of code review as a quality assurance technique in software development workflows. The study’s findings provide useful information for software development teams by emphasizing the advantages of code review for raising software quality and customer satisfaction. The results of this study can assist software development teams in incorporating code review into their workflows as a normal procedure, which would improve software quality and cut down on mistakes. In conclusion, this study shows that code review is a highly efficient way to raise the caliber of software. In terms of fault detection and prevention, code maintainability, and customer satisfaction, the study underlines the benefits of code review. This study can influence software development teams to make code review a common practice by highlighting its advantages, which would increase product quality and client satisfaction.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
"Code Review Developer Guide," [Online]. Available: https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/.
O. B. L. G. Y. C. M. W. G. Oleksii Kononenko, "Investigating Code Review Quality," p. 10, 2015.
"Best practices for reviewing a code," [Online]. Available: https://www.codegrip.tech/productivity/best-practices-for-reviewing-code/.
"Benefits of Code Review: Every Team Must Know [2022 Guides]," [Online]. Available: https://gaper.io/benefits-of-code-review/.
[Online].Available:https://about.gitlab.com/topics/version-control/what-is-code-review/#:~:text=Code%20reviews%2C%20also%20known%20as,developers%20learn%20the%20source%20code.
[Online]. Available: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-to-avoid-code-review-pitfalls-that-slow-your-productivity-down-b7a8536c4d3b/.
Bacchelli, A., & Bird, C. (2013). Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. IEEE Software, 30(4), 84-91. doi: 10.1109/MS.2012.175
Baltes, S., & Diehl, S. (2014). Improving software quality through code review: A case study. IEEE Software, 31(4), 60-67. doi: 10.1109/MS.2013.104
Kemerer, C. F., & Porter, L. F. (1992). Improving software quality through a formal technical review process. Journal of Systems and Software, 19(2), 119-131. doi: 10.1016/0164-1212(92)90074-f
P. C. Rigby and C. Bird, “Convergent contemporary software peer review practices,” in Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE), 2013, pp. 202-212.
A. Bacchelli and C. Bird, “Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review,” in Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2013, pp. 712-721.
Beller, M., Bacchelli, A., Zaidman, A., & Juergens, E. (2014). Modern code reviews in open-source projects: which problems do they fix? In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (pp. 202-211).
Bosu, A., Greiler, M., Bird, C.: ‘Characteristics of useful code reviews: an empirical study at microsoft’. Proc. of the 20
M. Jureczko, Ł. Kajda, and P. Górecki, “Code review effectiveness: An empirical study on selected factors influence,” IET Software, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 794–805, 2020.
J. &. K. Y. Shimagaki, "The effect of reviewer's expertise on code review outcomes," 2018.
Devart Software, “Code Review Benefits,” [Online]. Available: https://www.devart.com/review-assistant/learnmore/benefits.html.
M. Stein, J. Riedl, S.J. Harner and V. Mashayekhi, “A Case Study of Distributed Asynchronous Software Inspections,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, 1997, pp. 107-117.
A. Sutherland and G. Venolia, "Can peer code reviews be exploited for later information needs?," in Proceedings of ICSE, may 2009
O. Laitenberger, “A Survey of Software Inspection Technologies,” in Handbook on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 1, World Scientific Publishing Co., 2002, pp. 517-555.
A. Porter, H. Siy, A. Mockus and L. Votta, “Understanding the sources of variation in software inspections,” in ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 41-79, Jan. 1998.
Sauer, C., Jeffery, D.R., Land, L., et al.: ‘The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: A behaviorally motivated program of research’, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 2000, 26, (1), pp. 1–14
R. Morales, S. McIntosh and F. Khomh, “Do code review practices impact design quality? A case study of the Qt, VTK, and ITK projects,” 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), Montreal, QC, 2015, pp. 171-180.
Dos Santos, E.W., Nunes, I.: ‘Investigating the effectiveness of peer code review in distributed software development’. Proc. of the 2017 Brazilian Symp. on Software Engineering, 2017, pp. 84–93
Ebert, F., Castor, F., Novielli, N., et al.: ‘Communicative intention in code review questions’. Proc. of the 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Maintenance and Evolution, 2018, pp. 519–523
Caulo, M., Lin, B., Bavota, G., Scanniello, G., & Lanza, M. (2020). Knowledge Transfer in Modern Code Review. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Program Comprehension, pp. 230-240.