Experimental Validation of Source Code Reviews on Mobile Devices

The practice of code reviews is fundamental for producing and maintaining high-quality source code. However, because it is not the most favourite and enjoyable task of a developer, it is still not acknowledged as the industry worldwide standard. The idea behind this research is to encourage developers by providing them with an accessible way to perform reviews by using mobile devices. This paper presents the results from the experiment-driven investigation aimed at comparative analysis of code reviews performed on a dedicated mobile tool and a desktop application. After comparing results from 79 mobile and 102 desktop reviews and analysing almost 2500 comments we claim that mobile devices can be used to effectively read, understand and review source code of any size.

[1]  Shane McIntosh,et al.  An empirical study of the impact of modern code review practices on software quality , 2015, Empirical Software Engineering.

[2]  Robert C. Martin.  Clean Code - a Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship , 2008 .

[3]  Andy Zaidman,et al.  Modern code reviews in open-source projects: which problems do they fix? , 2014, MSR 2014.

[4]  Gang Yin,et al.  Reviewer recommendation for pull-requests in GitHub: What can we learn from code review and bug assignment? , 2016, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[5]  David Lo,et al.  Who should review this change?: Putting text and file location analyses together for more accurate recommendations , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME).

[6]  Hajimu Iida,et al.  Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review , 2015, 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER).

[7]  Chanchal Kumar Roy,et al.  CORRECT: Code Reviewer Recommendation in GitHub Based on Cross-Project and Technology Experience , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C).

[8]  Jacek Dajda,et al.  Source code reviews on mobile devices , 2016, Comput. Sci..

[9]  Giuliano Antoniol,et al.  Would static analysis tools help developers with code reviews? , 2015, 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER).

[10]  Mika Mäntylä,et al.  What Types of Defects Are Really Discovered in Code Reviews? , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[11]  Jacek Czerwonka,et al.  Code Reviews Do Not Find Bugs. How the Current Code Review Best Practice Slows Us Down , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering.

[12]  Michael W. Godfrey,et al.  Investigating technical and non-technical factors influencing modern code review , 2015, Empirical Software Engineering.

[13]  Shuvendu K. Lahiri,et al.  Helping Developers Help Themselves: Automatic Decomposition of Code Review Changesets , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering.

[14]  Christian Bird,et al.  Automatically Recommending Peer Reviewers in Modern Code Review , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[15]  Alberto Bacchelli,et al.  Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review , 2013, 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[16]  Mark C. Paulk,et al.  The Impact of Design and Code Reviews on Software Quality: An Empirical Study Based on PSP Data , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.