Continuous Code Reviews: A Social Coding tool for Code Reviews inside the IDE

Code reviews play an important and successful role in modern software development. But usually they happen only once before new code is merged into the main branch. We present a concept which helps developers to continuously give feedback on their source code directly in the integrated development environment (IDE) by using the metaphor of social networks. This reduces context switches for developers, improves the software development process and allows to give feedback to developers of external libraries and frameworks.

[1]  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.

[2]  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.

[3]  Naoyasu Ubayashi,et al.  A Study of the Quality-Impacting Practices of Modern Code Review at Sony Mobile , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C).

[4]  Vipin Balachandran,et al.  Reducing human effort and improving quality in peer code reviews using automatic static analysis and reviewer recommendation , 2013, 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[5]  Dror G. Feitelson,et al.  Development and Deployment at Facebook , 2013, IEEE Internet Computing.

[6]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  Towards improving bug tracking systems with game mechanisms , 2012, 2012 9th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR).

[7]  Hajimu Iida,et al.  Investigating Code Review Practices in Defective Files: An Empirical Study of the Qt System , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories.

[8]  A. Frank Ackerman,et al.  Software inspections: an effective verification process , 1989, IEEE Software.

[9]  Mary Poppendieck,et al.  Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit , 2003 .

[10]  Christian Bird,et al.  Convergent contemporary software peer review practices , 2013, ESEC/FSE 2013.

[11]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository , 2012, CSCW.

[12]  Premkumar T. Devanbu,et al.  Wait for It: Determinants of Pull Request Evaluation Latency on GitHub , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories.

[13]  Chanchal Kumar Roy,et al.  An insight into the pull requests of GitHub , 2014, MSR 2014.

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

[15]  David Lo,et al.  Network Structure of Social Coding in GitHub , 2013, 2013 17th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering.

[16]  Margaret-Anne D. Storey.  MSR 2012 keynote: The evolution of the social programmer , 2012, MSR.

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

[18]  Premkumar T. Devanbu,et al.  How social Q&A sites are changing knowledge sharing in open source software communities , 2014, CSCW.

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

[20]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub , 2014, ICSE.

[21]  Arie van Deursen,et al.  An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model , 2014, ICSE.

[22]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Let's talk about it: evaluating contributions through discussion in GitHub , 2014, SIGSOFT FSE.

[23]  Christian Bird,et al.  Lessons Learned from Building and Deploying a Code Review Analytics Platform , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories.

[24]  Grant Potter,et al.  A successful Git branching model , 2017 .

[25]  GermanDaniel,et al.  Contemporary Peer Review in Action , 2012 .

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

[27]  Margaret-Anne Storey,et al.  The evolution of the social programmer , 2012, MSR '12.

[28]  Daniel M. Germán,et al.  Peer Review on Open-Source Software Projects: Parameters, Statistical Models, and Theory , 2014, TSEM.

[29]  Filippo Lanubile,et al.  Product Line Engineering for NGO Projects , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 5th International Workshop on Product Line Approaches in Software Engineering.

[30]  Kent L. Beck,et al.  Extreme programming explained - embrace change , 1990 .

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

[32]  Michael E. Fagan.  Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development , 1976, IBM Syst. J..

[33]  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.

[34]  Isaac Pentinmaki,et al.  Review of "Lean software development: an agile tookit" by Mary and Tom Poppendieck. Addison Wesley 2003. , 2004, SOEN.

[35]  HolmesReid,et al.  Investigating technical and non-technical factors influencing modern code review , 2016 .

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