TY - GEN

T1 - Comparing pre commit reviews and post commit reviews using process simulation

AU - Baum, Tobias

AU - Kortum, Fabian

AU - Schneider, Kurt

AU - Brack, Arthur

AU - Schauder, Jens

PY - 2016/5/14

Y1 - 2016/5/14

N2 - Code review in practice is often performed change-based, i.e. using the code changes belonging to a task to determine which code to review. In previous studies, it was found that two variations of this process are used in industry: Pre commit review (review-then-commit) and post commit review (commit-then-review). The choice for one of these variants has implications not only for practitioners deciding on a code review process to use, but also for the development of review tools and for experimentation with review processes. In some situations, a specific variant is clearly preferable due to the nature of the development process or team. In other situations, there are conflicting opinions, and both variants have proponents arguing for their method of choice. So we asked: Are there practically relevant performance differences between pre commit and post commit reviews, and how are these differences influenced by contextual factors? To assess this question, we designed a parametric discrete event simulation model of certain agile development processes. We validated this model with practitioner's feedback and in part also with empirical data from industry. Our analysis of the simulation results indicates that the best choice does depend on the context, but also that there are many situations with no practically relevant difference between both choices. We identified the main influencing factors and underlying effects and condensed our findings into heuristic rules.

AB - Code review in practice is often performed change-based, i.e. using the code changes belonging to a task to determine which code to review. In previous studies, it was found that two variations of this process are used in industry: Pre commit review (review-then-commit) and post commit review (commit-then-review). The choice for one of these variants has implications not only for practitioners deciding on a code review process to use, but also for the development of review tools and for experimentation with review processes. In some situations, a specific variant is clearly preferable due to the nature of the development process or team. In other situations, there are conflicting opinions, and both variants have proponents arguing for their method of choice. So we asked: Are there practically relevant performance differences between pre commit and post commit reviews, and how are these differences influenced by contextual factors? To assess this question, we designed a parametric discrete event simulation model of certain agile development processes. We validated this model with practitioner's feedback and in part also with empirical data from industry. Our analysis of the simulation results indicates that the best choice does depend on the context, but also that there are many situations with no practically relevant difference between both choices. We identified the main influencing factors and underlying effects and condensed our findings into heuristic rules.

KW - Agile software development

KW - Code review

KW - Discrete event simulation

KW - Post commit review

KW - Pre commit review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84974625393&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/2904354.2904362

DO - 10.1145/2904354.2904362

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:84974625393

T3 - Proceedings - International Conference on Software and System Process, ICSSP 2016

SP - 26

EP - 35

BT - Proceedings - International Conference on Software and System Process, ICSSP 2016

T2 - International Conference on Software and System Process, ICSSP 2016

Y2 - 14 May 2016 through 15 May 2016

ER -