Anmerkungen:
Diese Datenquelle enthält auch Bestandsnachweise, die nicht zu einem Volltext führen.
Beschreibung:
Code reviews, i.e., systematic manual checks of program source code by other developers, have been an integral part of the quality assurance canon in software engineering since their formalization by Michael Fagan in the 1970s. Computer-aided tools supporting the review process have been known for decades and are now widely used in software development practice. Despite this long history and widespread use, current tools hardly go beyond simple automation of routine tasks. The core objective of this thesis is to systematically develop options for improved tool support for code reviews and to evaluate them in the interplay of research and practice. The starting point of the considerations is a comprehensive analysis of the state of research and practice. Interview and survey data collected in this thesis show that review processes in practice are now largely change-based, i.e., based on checking the changes resulting from the iterative-incremental evolution of software. This is true not only for open source projects and large technology companies, as shown in previous research, but across the industry. Despite the common change-based core process, there are various differences in the details of the review processes. The thesis shows possible factors influencing these differences. Important factors seem to be the process variants supported and promoted by the used review tool. In contrast, the used tool has little influence on the fundamental decision to use regular code reviews. Instead, the interviews and survey data suggest that the decision to use code reviews depends more on cultural factors. Overall, the analysis of the state of research and practice shows that there is a potential for developing better code review tools, and this potential is associated with the opportunity to increase efficiency in software development. The present thesis argues that the most promising approach for better review support is reducing the reviewer's cognitive load when reviewing large code changes. Results of a controlled ...