Graph-based visualization of merge requests for code review
References
[1]
Ackerman A.F., Buchwald L.S., Lewski F.H., Software inspections: an effective verification process, IEEE Softw. 6 (3) (1989) 31–36.
[2]
Bacchelli A., Bird C., Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review, in: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’13, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013, pp. 712–721. URL: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2486788.2486882.
[3]
Barnett M., Bird C., Brunet J., Lahiri S.K., Helping developers help themselves: Automatic decomposition of code review changesets, in: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1, IEEE Press, 2015, pp. 134–144.
[4]
Baum, T., Liskin, O., Niklas, K., Schneider, K., 2016a. Factors influencing code review processes in industry. In: Proceedings of the 2016 24th Acm Sigsoft International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. pp. 85–96.
[5]
Baum T., Liskin O., Niklas K., Schneider K., A faceted classification scheme for change-based industrial code review processes, in: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security, QRS, 2016, pp. 74–85,.
[6]
Baum T., Schneider K., On the need for a new generation of code review tools, in: International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, Springer, 2016, pp. 301–308.
[7]
Baum T., Schneider K., Bacchelli A., On the optimal order of reading source code changes for review, in: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME, 2017, pp. 329–340,.
[8]
Baum T., Schneider K., Bacchelli A., Associating working memory capacity and code change ordering with code review performance, Empir. Softw. Eng. 24 (4) (2019) 1762–1798,.
[9]
Beckwith, L., Kissinger, C., Burnett, M., Wiedenbeck, S., Lawrance, J., Blackwell, A., Cook, C., 2006. Tinkering and gender in end-user programmers’ debugging. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 231–240.
[10]
Bedu L., Tinh O., Petrillo F., A tertiary systematic literature review on Software Visualization, in: 2019 Working Conference on Software Visualization, VISSOFT, IEEE, 2019, pp. 33–44.
[11]
Benomar O., Sahraoui H., Poulin P., Visualizing software dynamicities with heat maps, in: 2013 First IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, VISSOFT, IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–10.
[12]
Bergel A., Peña V., Increasing test coverage with hapao, Sci. Comput. Program. (2014),.
[13]
Biffl S., Analysis of the impact of reading technique and inspector capability on individual inspection performance, in: Proceedings Seventh Asia-Pacific Software Engeering Conference. APSEC 2000, IEEE, 2000, pp. 136–145.
[14]
Blincoe K., Sheoran J., Goggins S., Petakovic E., Damian D., Understanding the popular users: Following, affiliation influence and leadership on GitHub, Inf. Softw. Technol. 70 (2016) 30–39.
[15]
Borges H., Hora A., Valente M.T., Understanding the factors that impact the popularity of GitHub repositories, in: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME, IEEE, 2016, pp. 334–344.
[16]
Bragdon A., Zeleznik R., Reiss S.P., Karumuri S., Cheung W., Kaplan J., Coleman C., Adeputra F., Laviola J.J., Code bubbles: A working set-based interface for code understanding and maintenance, in: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 2010,.
[17]
Brooke J., SUS: a “quick and dirty’usability, in: Usability Evaluation in Industry, CRC Press, 1996, p. 189.
[18]
Burnett M.M., Beckwith L., Wiedenbeck S., Fleming S.D., Cao J., Park T.H., Grigoreanu V., Rector K., Gender pluralism in problem-solving software, Interact. Comput. 23 (5) (2011) 450–460.
[19]
D’Ambros M., Lanza M., Lungu M., Visualizing co-change information with the evolution radar, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35 (5) (2009) 720–735.
[20]
D’Ambros, M., Lanza, M., Robbes, R., 2010. Commit 2.0. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Web 2.0 for Software Engineering. pp. 14–19.
[21]
Davis F.D., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Q. (1989) 319–340.
[22]
Dias M., Bacchelli A., Gousios G., Cassou D., Ducasse S., Untangling fine-grained code changes, in: 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, SANER, IEEE, 2015, pp. 341–350.
[23]
Diehl S., Software Visualization: Visualizing the Structure, Behaviour, and Evolution of Software, Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.
[24]
Eclipse Scout project, 2020, https://github.com/eclipse/scout.rt.
[25]
Eick S.G., Steffen J.L., Sumner E.E., Seesoft—A tool for visualizing line oriented software statistics, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (1992),.
[26]
Fagan M.E., Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development, IBM Syst. J. 15 (3) (1976) 182–211,.
[27]
Francel M.A., Rugaber S., The value of slicing while debugging, Sci. Comput. Program. 40 (2–3) (2001) 151–169.
[28]
Fregnan E., Automatic ordering of code changes for review, 2018.
[29]
Fregnan E., Fröhlich J., Spadini D., Bacchelli A., Replication package, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7047993.
[30]
Fruchterman T.M., Reingold E.M., Graph drawing by force-directed placement, Softw. - Pract. Exp. 21 (11) (1991) 1129–1164.
[31]
Gasparini L., Fregnan E., Braz L., Baum T., Bacchelli A., ChangeViz: Enhancing the GitHub pull request interface with method call information, in: 2021 IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, VISSOFT, IEEE, 2021.
[32]
Gómez V.U., Ducasse S., D’Hondt T., Visually characterizing source code changes, Sci. Comput. Program. 98 (2015) 376–393.
[33]
Gonçalves, P.W., Fregnan, E., Baum, T., Schneider, K., Bacchelli, A., 2020. Do explicit review strategies improve code review performance? In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories.
[34]
Gousios, G., Pinzger, M., Deursen, A.v., 2014. An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. pp. 345–355.
[35]
Guzzi A., Begel A., Miller J.K., Nareddy K., Facilitating enterprise software developer communication with CARES, in: 2012 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, ICSM, IEEE, 2012, pp. 527–536.
[36]
Hanakawa N., Visualization for software evolution based on logical coupling and module coupling, in: 14th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’07), IEEE, 2007, pp. 214–221.
[37]
Huang, Y., Jia, N., Chen, X., Hong, K., Zheng, Z., 2018. Salient-class location: help developers understand code change in code review. In: Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. pp. 770–774.
[38]
Jeffery C.L., The city metaphor in software visualization, 2019.
[39]
Johnson B., Song Y., Murphy-Hill E., Bowdidge R., Why don’t software developers use static analysis tools to find bugs?, in: 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), IEEE, 2013, pp. 672–681.
[40]
Khaloo P., Maghoumi M., Taranta E., Bettner D., Laviola J., Code park: A new 3D code visualization tool, in: Proceedings - 2017 IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization, VISSOFT 2017, 2017,. arXiv:1708.02174.
[41]
LaToza T.D., Arab M., Loksa D., Ko A.J., Explicit programming strategies, Empir. Softw. Eng. (2020) 1–34.
[42]
Lewis J.R., The system usability scale: past, present, and future, Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact. 34 (7) (2018) 577–590.
[43]
MacLeod L., Greiler M., Storey M.-A., Bird C., Czerwonka J., Code reviewing in the trenches: Challenges and best practices, IEEE Softw. 35 (4) (2017) 34–42.
[44]
Mattila, A.-L., Ihantola, P., Kilamo, T., Luoto, A., Nurminen, M., Väätäjä, H., 2016. Software visualization today: Systematic literature review. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference. pp. 262–271.
[45]
McConnell S., Code Complete, Pearson Education, 2004.
[46]
Munzner T., Visualization Analysis and Design, CRC Press, 2014.
[47]
Oosterwaal, S., Deursen, A.v., Coelho, R., Sawant, A.A., Bacchelli, A., 2016. Visualizing code and coverage changes for code review. In: Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. pp. 1038–1041.
[48]
Pascarella L., Spadini D., Palomba F., Bruntink M., Bacchelli A., Information needs in contemporary code review, Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2 (CSCW) (2018) 135:1–135:27,. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3274404.
[49]
Rigby P.C., Bird C., Convergent contemporary software peer review practices, in: Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, in: ESEC/FSE 2013, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2013, pp. 202–212,. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2491411.2491444.
[50]
Rong G., Li J., Xie M., Zheng T., The effect of checklist in code review for inexperienced students: An empirical study, in: 2012 IEEE 25th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, IEEE, 2012, pp. 120–124.
[51]
Sadowski C., Söderberg E., Church L., Sipko M., Bacchelli A., Modern code review: A case study at google, in: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, in: ICSE-SEIP ’18, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2018, pp. 181–190,. URL: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3183519.3183525.
[52]
Shull F., Seaman C., Inspecting the history of inspections: An example of evidence-based technology diffusion, IEEE Softw. 25 (1) (2008) 88–90.
[53]
Spadini D., Palomba F., Baum T., Hanenberg S., Bruntink M., Bacchelli A., Test-driven code review: An empirical study, in: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’19, IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2019, pp. 1061–1072,.
[54]
Spencer D., Card Sorting: Designing Usable Categories, Rosenfeld Media, 2009.
[55]
Tao, Y., Dang, Y., Xie, T., Zhang, D., Kim, S., 2012. How do software engineers understand code changes? An exploratory study in industry. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT 20th International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. pp. 1–11.
[56]
Tao Y., Kim S., Partitioning composite code changes to facilitate code review, in: 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, IEEE, 2015, pp. 180–190.
[57]
Thongtanunam P., Kula R.G., Cruz A.E.C., Yoshida N., Iida H., Improving code review effectiveness through reviewer recommendations, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, ACM, 2014, pp. 119–122.
[58]
Tymchuk Y., Mocci A., Lanza M., Code review: Veni, ViDI, Vici, in: 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, SANER, IEEE, 2015, pp. 151–160.
[59]
Wang M., Lin Z., Zou Y., Xie B., CoRA: decomposing and describing tangled code changes for reviewer, in: 2019 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE, IEEE, 2019, pp. 1050–1061.
[60]
Wettel R., Lanza M., Codecity: 3d visualization of large-scale software, in: Companion of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2008, pp. 921–922.
[61]
Wettel, R., Lanza, M., Robbes, R., 2011. Software systems as cities: A controlled experiment. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering. pp. 551–560.
[62]
Zhang T., Song M., Pinedo J., Kim M., Interactive code review for systematic changes, in: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering-Volume 1, IEEE Press, 2015, pp. 111–122.
Index Terms
- Graph-based visualization of merge requests for code review
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Controlling Software Evolution Process Using Code Smell Visualization
ICCCV '19: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Control and Computer VisionSoftware change is inevitable, evolution becomes a part of software lifetime, and software release becomes more frequent. Hence there is a need for the project manager to inspect and control the process during software development and evolution. In the ...
Demystifying code snippets in code reviews: a study of the OpenStack and Qt communities and a practitioner survey
AbstractCode review is widely known as one of the best practices for software quality assurance in software development. In a typical code review process, reviewers check the code committed by developers to ensure the quality of the code, during which ...
Code smells detection via modern code review: a study of the OpenStack and Qt communities
AbstractCode review plays an important role in software quality control. A typical review process involves a careful check of a piece of code in an attempt to detect and locate defects and other quality issues/violations. One type of issue that may impact ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
The Author(s).
Publisher
Elsevier Science Inc.
United States
Publication History
Published: 01 January 2023
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 13 Dec 2024