Who should review my code?: A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review

Patanamon Thongtanunam; Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn; Raula Gaikovina Kula; Norihiro Yoshida; Hajimu Iida; Ken-ichi Matsumoto

doi:10.1109/SANER.2015.7081824

Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review

Patanamon Thongtanunam, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Norihiro Yoshida, Hajimu Iida, Ken-ichi Matsumoto

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference Paper › Research › peer-review

208 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Software code review is an inspection of a code change by an independent third-party developer in order to identify and fix defects before an integration. Effectively performing code review can improve the overall software quality. In recent years, Modern Code Review (MCR), a lightweight and tool-based code inspection, has been widely adopted in both proprietary and open-source software systems. Finding appropriate code-reviewers in MCR is a necessary step of reviewing a code change. However, little research is known the difficulty of finding code-reviewers in a distributed software development and its impact on reviewing time. In this paper, we investigate the impact of reviews with code-reviewer assignment problem has on reviewing time. We find that reviews with code-reviewer assignment problem take 12 days longer to approve a code change. To help developers find appropriate code-reviewers, we propose RevFinder, a file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach. We leverage a similarity of previously reviewed file path to recommend an appropriate code-reviewer. The intuition is that files that are located in similar file paths would be managed and reviewed by similar experienced code-reviewers. Through an empirical evaluation on a case study of 42,045 reviews of Android Open Source Project (AOSP), OpenStack, Qt and LibreOffice projects, we find that RevFinder accurately recommended 79% of reviews with a top 10 recommendation. RevFinder also correctly recommended the code-reviewers with a median rank of 4. The overall ranking of RevFinder is 3 times better than that of a baseline approach. We believe that RevFinder could be applied to MCR in order to help developers find appropriate code-reviewers and speed up the overall code review process.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) - Proceedings
Subtitle of host publication	March 2-6, 2015 Montréal, Canada
Editors	Alexander Serebrenik, Bram Adams
Place of Publication	Piscataway NJ USA
Publisher	IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Pages	141-150
Number of pages	10
ISBN (Electronic)	9781479984695
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2015.7081824
Publication status	Published - 2015
Externally published	Yes
Event	IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering 2015 - Montreal, Canada Duration: 2 Mar 2015 → 6 Mar 2015 Conference number: 22nd http://www.saner.polymtl.ca/doku.php?id=en:start https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/7066219/proceeding (Proceedings)

Conference

Conference	IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering 2015
Abbreviated title	SANER 2015
Country/Territory	Canada
City	Montreal
Period	2/03/15 → 6/03/15
Internet address	http://www.saner.polymtl.ca/doku.php?id=en:start https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/7066219/proceeding (Proceedings)

Keywords

Code-Reviewer Recommendation
Distributed Software Development
Modern Code Review

Access to Document

10.1109/SANER.2015.7081824

Cite this

Thongtanunam, P., Tantithamthavorn, C., Kula, R. G., Yoshida, N., Iida, H., & Matsumoto, K. (2015). Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review. In A. Serebrenik, & B. Adams (Eds.), 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) - Proceedings: March 2-6, 2015 Montréal, Canada (pp. 141-150). Article 7081824 IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2015.7081824

Thongtanunam, Patanamon ; Tantithamthavorn, Chakkrit ; Kula, Raula Gaikovina et al. / Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review. 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) - Proceedings: March 2-6, 2015 Montréal, Canada. editor / Alexander Serebrenik ; Bram Adams. Piscataway NJ USA : IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2015. pp. 141-150

@inproceedings{5539cbb631464096b9dcc138879000c3,

title = "Who should review my code?: A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review",

abstract = "Software code review is an inspection of a code change by an independent third-party developer in order to identify and fix defects before an integration. Effectively performing code review can improve the overall software quality. In recent years, Modern Code Review (MCR), a lightweight and tool-based code inspection, has been widely adopted in both proprietary and open-source software systems. Finding appropriate code-reviewers in MCR is a necessary step of reviewing a code change. However, little research is known the difficulty of finding code-reviewers in a distributed software development and its impact on reviewing time. In this paper, we investigate the impact of reviews with code-reviewer assignment problem has on reviewing time. We find that reviews with code-reviewer assignment problem take 12 days longer to approve a code change. To help developers find appropriate code-reviewers, we propose RevFinder, a file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach. We leverage a similarity of previously reviewed file path to recommend an appropriate code-reviewer. The intuition is that files that are located in similar file paths would be managed and reviewed by similar experienced code-reviewers. Through an empirical evaluation on a case study of 42,045 reviews of Android Open Source Project (AOSP), OpenStack, Qt and LibreOffice projects, we find that RevFinder accurately recommended 79% of reviews with a top 10 recommendation. RevFinder also correctly recommended the code-reviewers with a median rank of 4. The overall ranking of RevFinder is 3 times better than that of a baseline approach. We believe that RevFinder could be applied to MCR in order to help developers find appropriate code-reviewers and speed up the overall code review process.",

keywords = "Code-Reviewer Recommendation, Distributed Software Development, Modern Code Review",

author = "Patanamon Thongtanunam and Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn and Kula, {Raula Gaikovina} and Norihiro Yoshida and Hajimu Iida and Ken-ichi Matsumoto",

year = "2015",

doi = "10.1109/SANER.2015.7081824",

language = "English",

pages = "141--150",

editor = "Serebrenik, {Alexander } and Adams, {Bram }",

booktitle = "2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) - Proceedings",

publisher = "IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers",

address = "United States of America",

note = "IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering 2015, SANER 2015 ; Conference date: 02-03-2015 Through 06-03-2015",

url = "http://www.saner.polymtl.ca/doku.php?id=en:start, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/conhome/7066219/proceeding",

}

Thongtanunam, P, Tantithamthavorn, C, Kula, RG, Yoshida, N, Iida, H & Matsumoto, K 2015, Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review. in A Serebrenik & B Adams (eds), 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) - Proceedings: March 2-6, 2015 Montréal, Canada., 7081824, IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway NJ USA, pp. 141-150, IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2/03/15. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2015.7081824

Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review. / Thongtanunam, Patanamon; Tantithamthavorn, Chakkrit; Kula, Raula Gaikovina et al.
2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) - Proceedings: March 2-6, 2015 Montréal, Canada. ed. / Alexander Serebrenik; Bram Adams. Piscataway NJ USA: IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2015. p. 141-150 7081824.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference Paper › Research › peer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - Who should review my code?

T2 - IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering 2015

AU - Thongtanunam, Patanamon

AU - Tantithamthavorn, Chakkrit

AU - Kula, Raula Gaikovina

AU - Yoshida, Norihiro

AU - Iida, Hajimu

AU - Matsumoto, Ken-ichi

N1 - Conference code: 22nd

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Software code review is an inspection of a code change by an independent third-party developer in order to identify and fix defects before an integration. Effectively performing code review can improve the overall software quality. In recent years, Modern Code Review (MCR), a lightweight and tool-based code inspection, has been widely adopted in both proprietary and open-source software systems. Finding appropriate code-reviewers in MCR is a necessary step of reviewing a code change. However, little research is known the difficulty of finding code-reviewers in a distributed software development and its impact on reviewing time. In this paper, we investigate the impact of reviews with code-reviewer assignment problem has on reviewing time. We find that reviews with code-reviewer assignment problem take 12 days longer to approve a code change. To help developers find appropriate code-reviewers, we propose RevFinder, a file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach. We leverage a similarity of previously reviewed file path to recommend an appropriate code-reviewer. The intuition is that files that are located in similar file paths would be managed and reviewed by similar experienced code-reviewers. Through an empirical evaluation on a case study of 42,045 reviews of Android Open Source Project (AOSP), OpenStack, Qt and LibreOffice projects, we find that RevFinder accurately recommended 79% of reviews with a top 10 recommendation. RevFinder also correctly recommended the code-reviewers with a median rank of 4. The overall ranking of RevFinder is 3 times better than that of a baseline approach. We believe that RevFinder could be applied to MCR in order to help developers find appropriate code-reviewers and speed up the overall code review process.

AB - Software code review is an inspection of a code change by an independent third-party developer in order to identify and fix defects before an integration. Effectively performing code review can improve the overall software quality. In recent years, Modern Code Review (MCR), a lightweight and tool-based code inspection, has been widely adopted in both proprietary and open-source software systems. Finding appropriate code-reviewers in MCR is a necessary step of reviewing a code change. However, little research is known the difficulty of finding code-reviewers in a distributed software development and its impact on reviewing time. In this paper, we investigate the impact of reviews with code-reviewer assignment problem has on reviewing time. We find that reviews with code-reviewer assignment problem take 12 days longer to approve a code change. To help developers find appropriate code-reviewers, we propose RevFinder, a file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach. We leverage a similarity of previously reviewed file path to recommend an appropriate code-reviewer. The intuition is that files that are located in similar file paths would be managed and reviewed by similar experienced code-reviewers. Through an empirical evaluation on a case study of 42,045 reviews of Android Open Source Project (AOSP), OpenStack, Qt and LibreOffice projects, we find that RevFinder accurately recommended 79% of reviews with a top 10 recommendation. RevFinder also correctly recommended the code-reviewers with a median rank of 4. The overall ranking of RevFinder is 3 times better than that of a baseline approach. We believe that RevFinder could be applied to MCR in order to help developers find appropriate code-reviewers and speed up the overall code review process.

KW - Code-Reviewer Recommendation

KW - Distributed Software Development

KW - Modern Code Review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928683559&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1109/SANER.2015.7081824

DO - 10.1109/SANER.2015.7081824

M3 - Conference Paper

AN - SCOPUS:84928683559

SP - 141

EP - 150

BT - 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) - Proceedings

A2 - Serebrenik, Alexander

A2 - Adams, Bram

PB - IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

CY - Piscataway NJ USA

Y2 - 2 March 2015 through 6 March 2015

ER -

Thongtanunam P, Tantithamthavorn C, Kula RG, Yoshida N, Iida H, Matsumoto K. Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review. In Serebrenik A, Adams B, editors, 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER) - Proceedings: March 2-6, 2015 Montréal, Canada. Piscataway NJ USA: IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 2015. p. 141-150. 7081824 doi: 10.1109/SANER.2015.7081824

Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review

Abstract

Conference

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this