Structured Unit Testable Templated Code for Efficient Code Review Process
August 09, 2016 Β· Declared Dead Β· π PeerJ Preprints
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Amol Patwardhan
arXiv ID
1610.05726
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
14
Venue
PeerJ Preprints
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Modern software development teams are distributed across onsite and off-shore locations. Each team has developers with varying experience levels and English communication skills. In such a diverse development environment it is important to maintain the software quality, coding standards, timely delivery of features and bug fixes. It is also important to reduce testing effort, minimize side effects such as change in functionality, user experience or application performance. Code reviews are intended to control code quality. Unfortunately, many projects lack enforcement of processes and standards because of approaching deadlines, live production issues and lack of resource availability. This study examines a novel structured, unit testable templated code method to enforce code review standards with an intent to reduce coding effort, minimize revisions and eliminate functional and performance side effects on the system. The proposed method would also result in unit-testable code that can also be easily rolled back and increase team productivity. The baseline for traditional code review processes using metrics such as code review duration, bug regression rate, revision count was measured. These metrics were then compared with results from the proposed code review process that used structured unit testable templated code. The performance on 2 large enterprise level applications spanning over 2 years and 9 feature and maintenance release cycles was evaluated. The structured unit testable templated code method resulted in a decrease in total code review time, revision count and coding effort. It also decreased the number of live production issues caused by code churn or side effects of bug fix when compared to traditional code review process.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted