Are good code reviewers also good at design review?

Hidetake Uwano, Akito Monden, Ken Ichi Matsumoto

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

Software review is a necessity activity to build high reliability software in software development. In this paper, we experimentally analyze the difference in performance between two types of (checklist based) software reviews: design review and code review. If good code reviewers were also good at design review, then we should assign good code reviewers to the design review too. If not, that means these two reviews require different types of expertise. In our experiment, with ten review participants, we examined two hypotheses each related to the defect detection ratio and the required time to find a defect. As a result, we found that there was no correlation between two reviews, i.e. good code reviewers were not necessarily the good design reviewers. This suggests the need of a completely different training program for each review.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationESEM'08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
Pages351-353
Number of pages3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008
Externally publishedYes
Event2nd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2008 - Kaiserslautern, Germany
Duration: Oct 9 2008Oct 10 2008

Other

Other2nd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2008
CountryGermany
CityKaiserslautern
Period10/9/0810/10/08

Fingerprint

Software reliability
Software engineering
Defects
Experiments
Defect detection

Keywords

  • Code review
  • Design review
  • Experimental evaluation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Science Applications
  • Software
  • Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Cite this

Uwano, H., Monden, A., & Matsumoto, K. I. (2008). Are good code reviewers also good at design review? In ESEM'08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (pp. 351-353) https://doi.org/10.1145/1414004.1414079

Are good code reviewers also good at design review? / Uwano, Hidetake; Monden, Akito; Matsumoto, Ken Ichi.

ESEM'08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 2008. p. 351-353.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Uwano, H, Monden, A & Matsumoto, KI 2008, Are good code reviewers also good at design review? in ESEM'08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. pp. 351-353, 2nd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2008, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 10/9/08. https://doi.org/10.1145/1414004.1414079
Uwano H, Monden A, Matsumoto KI. Are good code reviewers also good at design review? In ESEM'08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 2008. p. 351-353 https://doi.org/10.1145/1414004.1414079
Uwano, Hidetake ; Monden, Akito ; Matsumoto, Ken Ichi. / Are good code reviewers also good at design review?. ESEM'08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. 2008. pp. 351-353
@inproceedings{2329a704779341519d148a27a05135b2,
title = "Are good code reviewers also good at design review?",
abstract = "Software review is a necessity activity to build high reliability software in software development. In this paper, we experimentally analyze the difference in performance between two types of (checklist based) software reviews: design review and code review. If good code reviewers were also good at design review, then we should assign good code reviewers to the design review too. If not, that means these two reviews require different types of expertise. In our experiment, with ten review participants, we examined two hypotheses each related to the defect detection ratio and the required time to find a defect. As a result, we found that there was no correlation between two reviews, i.e. good code reviewers were not necessarily the good design reviewers. This suggests the need of a completely different training program for each review.",
keywords = "Code review, Design review, Experimental evaluation",
author = "Hidetake Uwano and Akito Monden and Matsumoto, {Ken Ichi}",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1145/1414004.1414079",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781595939715",
pages = "351--353",
booktitle = "ESEM'08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Are good code reviewers also good at design review?

AU - Uwano, Hidetake

AU - Monden, Akito

AU - Matsumoto, Ken Ichi

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Software review is a necessity activity to build high reliability software in software development. In this paper, we experimentally analyze the difference in performance between two types of (checklist based) software reviews: design review and code review. If good code reviewers were also good at design review, then we should assign good code reviewers to the design review too. If not, that means these two reviews require different types of expertise. In our experiment, with ten review participants, we examined two hypotheses each related to the defect detection ratio and the required time to find a defect. As a result, we found that there was no correlation between two reviews, i.e. good code reviewers were not necessarily the good design reviewers. This suggests the need of a completely different training program for each review.

AB - Software review is a necessity activity to build high reliability software in software development. In this paper, we experimentally analyze the difference in performance between two types of (checklist based) software reviews: design review and code review. If good code reviewers were also good at design review, then we should assign good code reviewers to the design review too. If not, that means these two reviews require different types of expertise. In our experiment, with ten review participants, we examined two hypotheses each related to the defect detection ratio and the required time to find a defect. As a result, we found that there was no correlation between two reviews, i.e. good code reviewers were not necessarily the good design reviewers. This suggests the need of a completely different training program for each review.

KW - Code review

KW - Design review

KW - Experimental evaluation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62949122454&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62949122454&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1145/1414004.1414079

DO - 10.1145/1414004.1414079

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 9781595939715

SP - 351

EP - 353

BT - ESEM'08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

ER -