Predicting Code Review Completion Time in Modern Code Review
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.15141v1
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 14:00:56 GMT
- Title: Predicting Code Review Completion Time in Modern Code Review
- Authors: Moataz Chouchen, Jefferson Olongo, Ali Ouni, Mohamed Wiem Mkaouer
- Abstract summary: Modern Code Review (MCR) is being adopted in both open source and commercial projects as a common practice.
Code reviews can experience significant delays to be completed due to various socio-technical factors.
There is a lack of tool support to help developers estimating the time required to complete a code review.
- Score: 12.696276129130332
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Context. Modern Code Review (MCR) is being adopted in both open source and
commercial projects as a common practice. MCR is a widely acknowledged quality
assurance practice that allows early detection of defects as well as poor
coding practices. It also brings several other benefits such as knowledge
sharing, team awareness, and collaboration.
Problem. In practice, code reviews can experience significant delays to be
completed due to various socio-technical factors which can affect the project
quality and cost. For a successful review process, peer reviewers should
perform their review tasks in a timely manner while providing relevant feedback
about the code change being reviewed. However, there is a lack of tool support
to help developers estimating the time required to complete a code review prior
to accepting or declining a review request.
Objective. Our objective is to build and validate an effective approach to
predict the code review completion time in the context of MCR and help
developers better manage and prioritize their code review tasks.
Method. We formulate the prediction of the code review completion time as a
learning problem. In particular, we propose a framework based on regression
models to (i) effectively estimate the code review completion time, and (ii)
understand the main factors influencing code review completion time.
Related papers
- AI-Assisted Assessment of Coding Practices in Modern Code Review [11.803776132972029]
AutoCommenter is an end-to-end system for learning and enforcing coding best practices.
This paper reports on the development, deployment, and evaluation of AutoCommenter.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-22T11:57:18Z) - Comments as Natural Logic Pivots: Improve Code Generation via Comment Perspective [85.48043537327258]
We propose MANGO (comMents As Natural loGic pivOts), including a comment contrastive training strategy and a corresponding logical comment decoding strategy.
Results indicate that MANGO significantly improves the code pass rate based on the strong baselines.
The robustness of the logical comment decoding strategy is notably higher than the Chain-of-thoughts prompting.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-11T08:30:46Z) - Demystifying Code Snippets in Code Reviews: A Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communities and A Practitioner Survey [6.091233191627442]
We conduct a mixed-methods study to mine information and knowledge related to code snippets in code reviews.
The study results highlight that reviewers can provide code snippets in appropriate scenarios to meet developers' specific information needs in code reviews.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-26T17:49:19Z) - ReviewRanker: A Semi-Supervised Learning Based Approach for Code Review
Quality Estimation [0.6895577977557867]
Inspection of review process effectiveness and continuous improvement can boost development productivity.
We propose a semi-supervised learning based system ReviewRanker which is aimed at assigning each code review a confidence score.
Our proposed method is trained based on simple and and well defined labels provided by developers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-08T15:37:48Z) - Exploring the Advances in Identifying Useful Code Review Comments [0.0]
This paper reflects the evolution of research on the usefulness of code review comments.
It examines papers that define the usefulness of code review comments, mine and annotate datasets, study developers' perceptions, analyze factors from different aspects, and use machine learning classifiers to automatically predict the usefulness of code review comments.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-03T00:41:20Z) - RepoCoder: Repository-Level Code Completion Through Iterative Retrieval
and Generation [96.75695811963242]
RepoCoder is a framework to streamline the repository-level code completion process.
It incorporates a similarity-based retriever and a pre-trained code language model.
It consistently outperforms the vanilla retrieval-augmented code completion approach.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-22T13:54:46Z) - CodeReviewer: Pre-Training for Automating Code Review Activities [36.40557768557425]
This research focuses on utilizing pre-training techniques for the tasks in the code review scenario.
We collect a large-scale dataset of real world code changes and code reviews from open-source projects in nine of the most popular programming languages.
To better understand code diffs and reviews, we propose CodeReviewer, a pre-trained model that utilizes four pre-training tasks tailored specifically for the code review senario.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-17T05:40:13Z) - ReACC: A Retrieval-Augmented Code Completion Framework [53.49707123661763]
We propose a retrieval-augmented code completion framework, leveraging both lexical copying and referring to code with similar semantics by retrieval.
We evaluate our approach in the code completion task in Python and Java programming languages, achieving a state-of-the-art performance on CodeXGLUE benchmark.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-03-15T08:25:08Z) - Deep Just-In-Time Inconsistency Detection Between Comments and Source
Code [51.00904399653609]
In this paper, we aim to detect whether a comment becomes inconsistent as a result of changes to the corresponding body of code.
We develop a deep-learning approach that learns to correlate a comment with code changes.
We show the usefulness of our approach by combining it with a comment update model to build a more comprehensive automatic comment maintenance system.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-04T16:49:28Z) - Code Review in the Classroom [57.300604527924015]
Young developers in a classroom setting provide a clear picture of the potential favourable and problematic areas of the code review process.
Their feedback suggests that the process has been well received with some points to better the process.
This paper can be used as guidelines to perform code reviews in the classroom.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-04-19T06:07:45Z) - Automating App Review Response Generation [67.58267006314415]
We propose a novel approach RRGen that automatically generates review responses by learning knowledge relations between reviews and their responses.
Experiments on 58 apps and 309,246 review-response pairs highlight that RRGen outperforms the baselines by at least 67.4% in terms of BLEU-4.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-02-10T05:23:38Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.