谷歌的现代代码审查实践：一项深度研究

需积分: 11 174 浏览量更新于2024-09-06 收藏 1.22MB PDF 举报

"这篇研究论文深入探讨了谷歌的现代代码审查实践，通过对12次访谈、44位受访者参与的调查以及对900万次审查更改记录的分析，揭示了谷歌采用代码审查的原因、当前的实施情况以及开发者的满意度和挑战。" 现代代码审查在谷歌的案例研究中扮演了重要角色，它是一种轻量级、基于工具的代码变更审核机制，如今已成为开源项目和工业系统中的标准做法。谷歌很早就引入了代码审查，并随着时间的推移不断进化和完善。这篇论文旨在深入了解谷歌如何引入并维持这一实践，以及在经过数十年代码更改和数百万次代码审查后，这一过程的现状。研究通过以下三个方面展开： 1. **动机探究**：通过对谷歌员工的访谈和调查，研究揭示了推动代码审查实施的动机。这些动机可能包括提高代码质量、确保软件的健壮性、减少错误和漏洞、促进团队协作以及知识共享。 2. **当前实践**：研究分析了谷歌内部的代码审查流程，包括审查的标准、工具使用、反馈机制和审查时间等。这有助于理解谷歌如何平衡效率与质量，以及如何通过自动化工具支持大规模的代码审查工作。 3. **开发者满意度与挑战**：通过调查，研究人员评估了开发者对代码审查的满意程度，同时也识别出了他们在执行审查过程中遇到的问题和挑战，如时间压力、审查负担过重、沟通困难等。这篇论文的贡献在于提供了对大型企业中代码审查实践的深入洞察，这对于其他组织改进其代码审查流程和提高软件开发效率具有指导意义。同时，它还讨论了如何通过有效的代码审查策略来增强团队合作和提升软件质量，对于整个软件工程领域都有重要的参考价值。关键词：软件工程，代码维护工具，代码审查，谷歌实践，开发者满意度，挑战 ACM引用格式：Caitlin Sadowski, Emma Söderberg, Luke Church, Michal Sipko, "Modern Code Review: A Case Study at Google," ACM, 20XX.

Modern Code Review: A Case Study at Google

Caitlin Sadowski, Emma Söderberg,

Luke Church, Michal Sipko

Google, Inc.

{supertri,emso,lukechurch,sipkom}@google.com

Alberto Bacchelli

University of Zurich

bacchelli@iﬁ.uzh.ch

ABSTRACT

Employing lightweight, tool-based code review of code changes

(aka modern code review) has become the norm for a wide

variety of open-source and industrial systems. In this pa-

p er, we make an exploratory investigation of modern code

review at Google. Google introduced code review early on

and evolved it over the years; our study sheds light on why

Go ogl e introduced this practice and analyzes its current

status, after the process has been reﬁned through decades of

co de changes and millions of code reviews. By means of 12

interviews, a survey with 44 respondents, and the analysis

of review logs for 9 million reviewed changes, we investigate

motivations behind code review at Google, current pract ices,

and developers’ satisfaction and challenges.

CCS CONCEPTS

• Software and its engineering → Software maintenance tools

;

ACM Reference format:

Caitlin Sadowski, Emma Söderberg,

Luke Church, Michal Sipko and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018. Modern

Code Review: A Case Study at Google. In Proceedings of 40th

International Conference on Software Engineering: Software En-

gineering in Practice Track, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27-June 3,

2018 (ICSE-SEIP ’18), 10 pages.

DOI: 10.1145/3183519.3183525

1 INTRODUCTION

Peer code review, a manual inspection of source code by

developers other than the author, is recognized as a valuable

to ol for improving the quality of software projects [

]. In

1976, Fagan formalized a highly structured process for code

reviewing—code inspections [

]. Over the years, researchers

provided evidence on the beneﬁts of code inspection, espe-

cially for defect ﬁnding, but the cumbersome, time-consuming,

and synchronous nature of this appro ach hindered its uni-

versal adoption in practice [

]. Nowadays, most organiza-

tions adopt more lightweight code review practices to limit

the ineﬃciencies of inspections [

]. Modern code review is

(1) informal (in contrast to Fagan-style), (2) tool-based [

(3) asynchronous, and (4) focused on reviewing code changes.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work

for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that

copies are not made or distributed for proﬁt or commercial advantage

and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the ﬁrst page.

Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.

For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).

ICSE-SEIP ’18, Gothenburg, Sweden

2018 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). 978-1-4503-5659-

6/18/05. . . $15.00

DOI: 10.1145/3183519.3183525

An open research challenge is understanding which prac-

tices represent valuable and eﬀective methods of review in this

novel context. Rigby and Bird quantitativel y analyzed code

review data from software projects spanning varying domains

as well as organizations and found ﬁve strongly convergent

aspect s [

], which they conjectured can be prescriptive to

other projects. The analysis of Rigby and Bird is based on the

value of a broad perspective (that analyzes multiple projects

from diﬀerent contexts). For the development of an empirical

b ody of knowledge, championed by Basili [

], it is essential

to also consider a focused and longitudinal perspective that

analyzes a single case. This paper expands on work by Rigby

and Bird to focus on the review practices and characteristics

established at Google, i.e., a company with a multi-decade

history of code review and a high-volume of daily reviews to

learn from. This paper can be (1) prescriptive to practitioners

p erforming code review and (2) compelling for researchers

who want to understand and support this novel process.

Co de review has been a required part of software develop-

ment at Google since very early on in the company’s history;

b ecause it was introduced so early on, it has become a core

part of Google culture. The process a nd tooli ng for code

review at Google have been iteratively reﬁned for more than

a decade and is applied by more than 25,000 developers

making more than 20,000 source code changes each workday,

in dozens of oﬃces around the world [30].

We conduct our analysis in the form of an exploratory

investigation focusing on three aspects of code review, in line

with and expanding on the work by Rigby and Bi rd [

(1) The motivations driving code review, (2) the current

practices, and (3) the perception of developers on code review,

fo cusing on challenges encountered with a speciﬁc review

(breakdowns in the review process) and satisfacti on. Our

research method combines input from multiple data sources:

12 semi-structured interviews with Google developers, an

internal survey sent to engineers who recently sent changes

to review with 44 responses, and log data from Google’s code

review tool pertaining to 9 million reviews over two years.

We ﬁnd that the process at Google is markedly lighter

weight than in other contexts, based on a single reviewer,

quick i terations, small changes, and a tight integration with

the code review tool. Breakdowns still exist, however, due to

the complexity of the interactions that occur around code re-

view. Nevertheless, developers consider this process valuable,

conﬁrm that it works well at scale, and conduct it for several

reasons that also depend on the relationship between author

and reviewers. Finally, we ﬁnd evidence on the use of the code

review tool beyond collaborative review and corroboration

for the importance of code review as an educational tool.

下载后可阅读完整内容，剩余9页未读，立即下载

suchas9999

粉丝: 0
资源: 2

谷歌的现代代码审查实践：一项深度研究

Bioinformatics-with-Python-Cookbook-Learn-how-to-use-modern-Python-bioinformatics-libraries-and-applications-to-do-cutti ....pdf

Handbook of Research on Soft Computing and Nature-Inspired Algorithms

Model Performance Benchmarking: How to Establish a Fair Comparison Platform

Date Formatting in Excel: A MATLAB Beginner's Guide

Cloud-based Machine Learning Model Management: How to Efficiently Supervise Your AI Assets

【SCI2区】基于天鹰优化算法AO优化TCN锂电池健康寿命预测算法研究Matlab实现.rar

CPPC++_在许多编程语言中开始编写gilderose重构卡塔的代码.zip

untitled1.cpp

Apache Spark：Spark项目实战：机器学习模型部署.docx

我的解决方案，以Leetcode问题所有的解决方案提供.zip

最新资源