Impact of Continuous Integration on Code Reviews

Peer code review and continuous integration often interleave with each other in the modern software quality management. Although several studies investigate how non-technical factors (e.g., reviewer workload), developer participation and even patch size affect the code review process, the impact of continuous integration on code reviews is not yet properly understood. In this paper, we report an exploratory study using 578K automated build entries where we investigate the impact of automated builds on the code reviews. Our investigation suggests that successfully passed builds are more likely to encourage new code review participation in a pull request. Frequently built projects are found to be maintaining a steady level of reviewing activities over the years, which was quite missing from the rarely built projects. Experiments with 26,516 automated build entries reported that our proposed model can identify 64% of the builds that triggered new code reviews later.

[1]  Michael W. Godfrey,et al.  Code Review Quality: How Developers See It , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[2]  Georgios Gousios,et al.  TravisTorrent: Synthesizing Travis CI and GitHub for Full-Stack Research on Continuous Integration , 2017, 2017 IEEE/ACM 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR).

[3]  Christian Bird,et al.  Characteristics of Useful Code Reviews: An Empirical Study at Microsoft , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories.

[4]  Michael W. Godfrey,et al.  Investigating code review quality: Do people and participation matter? , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME).

[5]  Shane McIntosh,et al.  The impact of code review coverage and code review participation on software quality: a case study of the qt, VTK, and ITK projects , 2014, MSR 2014.

[6]  Foutse Khomh,et al.  Do code review practices impact design quality? A case study of the Qt, VTK, and ITK projects , 2015, 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER).

[7]  Daniel M. Germán,et al.  Contemporary Peer Review in Action: Lessons from Open Source Development , 2012, IEEE Software.

[8]  Michael W. Godfrey,et al.  The influence of non-technical factors on code review , 2013, 2013 20th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE).

[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).