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

• Deep Learning-based Code Reviews: A Paradigm Shift or a Double-Edged Sword? [14.970843824847956]
  We run a controlled experiment with 29 experts who reviewed different programs with/without the support of an automatically generated code review. We show that reviewers consider valid most of the issues automatically identified by the LLM and that the availability of an automated review as a starting point strongly influences their behavior. The reviewers who started from an automated review identified a higher number of low-severity issues while, however, not identifying more high-severity issues as compared to a completely manual process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-18T09:24:01Z)
• Understanding Code Understandability Improvements in Code Reviews [79.16476505761582]
  We analyzed 2,401 code review comments from Java open-source projects on GitHub. 83.9% of suggestions for improvement were accepted and integrated, with fewer than 1% later reverted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T12:21:23Z)
• Codev-Bench: How Do LLMs Understand Developer-Centric Code Completion? [60.84912551069379]
  We present the Code-Development Benchmark (Codev-Bench), a fine-grained, real-world, repository-level, and developer-centric evaluation framework. Codev-Agent is an agent-based system that automates repository crawling, constructs execution environments, extracts dynamic calling chains from existing unit tests, and generates new test samples to avoid data leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T09:11:10Z)
• Predicting Expert Evaluations in Software Code Reviews [8.012861163935904]
  This paper presents an algorithmic model that automates aspects of code review typically avoided due to their complexity or subjectivity. Instead of replacing manual reviews, our model adds insights that help reviewers focus on more impactful tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T16:01:52Z)
• DOCE: Finding the Sweet Spot for Execution-Based Code Generation [69.5305729627198]
  We propose a comprehensive framework that includes candidate generation, $n$-best reranking, minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding, and self-ging as the core components. Our findings highlight the importance of execution-based methods and the difference gap between execution-based and execution-free methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-25T07:10:36Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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.