现代代码审查中的知识转移

Maria Caulo, B. Lin, G. Bavota, G. Scanniello, Michele Lanza
{"title":"现代代码审查中的知识转移","authors":"Maria Caulo, B. Lin, G. Bavota, G. Scanniello, Michele Lanza","doi":"10.1145/3387904.3389270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Knowledge transfer is one of the main goals of modern code review, as shown by several studies that surveyed and interviewed developers. While knowledge transfer is a clear expectation of the code review process, there are no analytical studies using data mined from software repositories to assess the effectiveness of code review in “training” developers and improve their skills over time. We present a mining-based study investigating how and whether the code review process helps developers to improve their contributions to open source projects over time. We analyze 32,062 peer-reviewed pull requests (PRs) made across 4,981 GitHub repositories by 728 developers who created their GitHub account in 2015. We assume that PRs performed in the past by a developer $D$ that have been subject to a code review process have “transferred knowledge” to D. Then, we verify if over time (i.e., when more and more reviewed PRs are made by D), the quality of the contributions made by $D$ to open source projects increases (as assessed by proxies we defined, such as the acceptance of PRs, or the polarity of the sentiment in the review comments left for the submitted PRs). With the above measures, we were unable to capture the positive impact played by the code review process on the quality of developers' contributions. This might be due to several factors, including the choices we made in our experimental design.Additional investigations are needed to confirm or contradict such a negative result.","PeriodicalId":231095,"journal":{"name":"2020 IEEE/ACM 28th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Knowledge Transfer in Modern Code Review\",\"authors\":\"Maria Caulo, B. Lin, G. Bavota, G. Scanniello, Michele Lanza\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3387904.3389270\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Knowledge transfer is one of the main goals of modern code review, as shown by several studies that surveyed and interviewed developers. While knowledge transfer is a clear expectation of the code review process, there are no analytical studies using data mined from software repositories to assess the effectiveness of code review in “training” developers and improve their skills over time. We present a mining-based study investigating how and whether the code review process helps developers to improve their contributions to open source projects over time. We analyze 32,062 peer-reviewed pull requests (PRs) made across 4,981 GitHub repositories by 728 developers who created their GitHub account in 2015. We assume that PRs performed in the past by a developer $D$ that have been subject to a code review process have “transferred knowledge” to D. Then, we verify if over time (i.e., when more and more reviewed PRs are made by D), the quality of the contributions made by $D$ to open source projects increases (as assessed by proxies we defined, such as the acceptance of PRs, or the polarity of the sentiment in the review comments left for the submitted PRs). With the above measures, we were unable to capture the positive impact played by the code review process on the quality of developers' contributions. This might be due to several factors, including the choices we made in our experimental design.Additional investigations are needed to confirm or contradict such a negative result.\",\"PeriodicalId\":231095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2020 IEEE/ACM 28th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2020 IEEE/ACM 28th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3387904.3389270\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 IEEE/ACM 28th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3387904.3389270","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

知识转移是现代代码审查的主要目标之一,正如一些调查和采访开发人员的研究所显示的那样。虽然知识转移是对代码审查过程的明确期望,但没有使用从软件存储库中挖掘的数据来评估“培训”开发人员代码审查的有效性并随着时间的推移提高他们的技能的分析研究。我们提出了一项基于挖掘的研究,调查代码审查过程如何以及是否随着时间的推移帮助开发人员改进他们对开源项目的贡献。我们分析了728名在2015年创建GitHub账户的开发者在4,981个GitHub存储库中发出的32,062个同行评审的pull request (pr)。我们假设PRs过去由开发人员执行D,一直受到美元代码评审过程有“知识”转移到D。然后,我们验证(例如,当越来越多的审查PRs由D),贡献的质量由D开源项目增加美元(评估代理我们定义,如PRs的验收,或情绪的极性评论留给提交PRs)。使用以上的方法,我们无法捕捉代码审查过程对开发人员贡献的质量所产生的积极影响。这可能是由几个因素造成的,包括我们在实验设计中所做的选择。需要进一步的调查来证实或反驳这一否定结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Knowledge Transfer in Modern Code Review
Knowledge transfer is one of the main goals of modern code review, as shown by several studies that surveyed and interviewed developers. While knowledge transfer is a clear expectation of the code review process, there are no analytical studies using data mined from software repositories to assess the effectiveness of code review in “training” developers and improve their skills over time. We present a mining-based study investigating how and whether the code review process helps developers to improve their contributions to open source projects over time. We analyze 32,062 peer-reviewed pull requests (PRs) made across 4,981 GitHub repositories by 728 developers who created their GitHub account in 2015. We assume that PRs performed in the past by a developer $D$ that have been subject to a code review process have “transferred knowledge” to D. Then, we verify if over time (i.e., when more and more reviewed PRs are made by D), the quality of the contributions made by $D$ to open source projects increases (as assessed by proxies we defined, such as the acceptance of PRs, or the polarity of the sentiment in the review comments left for the submitted PRs). With the above measures, we were unable to capture the positive impact played by the code review process on the quality of developers' contributions. This might be due to several factors, including the choices we made in our experimental design.Additional investigations are needed to confirm or contradict such a negative result.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
On the Equivalence of Information Retrieval Methods for Automated Traceability Link Recovery: A Ten-Year Retrospective Program Comprehension in Virtual Reality How Does Incomplete Composite Refactoring Affect Internal Quality Attributes? A Literature Review of Automatic Traceability Links Recovery for Software Change Impact Analysis Inheritance software metrics on smart contracts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1