![[PukiWiki]](image/wadanyan.png "[PukiWiki]")
| [74]O. Kononenko, O. Baysal, L. Guerrouj, Y. Cao, and M. W. Godfrey, “Investigating code review quality: Do people and participation matter?,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME), Bremen, Germany, 2015, pp. 111–120. | |||
| Type | Metric | Description | Rationale |
| Technical | Size (LOC) | ||
| Chunks | |||
| Number of files | |||
| Module | |||
| Priority | |||
| Severity | |||
| Super review | |||
| Number of previous patches | |||
| Number of writer’s previous patches | |||
| Personal | Review queue | ||
| Reviewer experience | |||
| Reviewer experience for module | |||
| Writer experience | |||
| Writer experience for module | |||
| Participation | Number of developers on CC | ||
| Number of comments | |||
| Number of commenting developers | |||
| Average number of comments per developer | |||
| Number of reviewer comments | |||
| Number of writer comments | |||
| [90]S. McIntosh, Y. Kamei, B. Adams, and A. E. Hassan, “The impact of code review coverage and code review participation on software quality: a case study of the qt, VTK, and ITK projects,” in Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories - MSR 2014, Hyderabad, India, 2014, pp. 192–201. | |||
| [91]S. McIntosh, Y. Kamei, B. Adams, and A. E. Hassan, “An empirical study of the impact of modern code review practices on software quality,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 2146–2189, Oct. 2016. | |||
| [99]R. Morales, S. McIntosh, and F. Khomh, “Do code review practices impact design quality? A case study of the Qt, VTK, and ITK projects,” in 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering (SANER), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2015, pp. 171–180. | |||
| Type | Metric | Description | Rationale |
| Product | Size | ||
| Complexity | |||
| Process | Prior defects | ||
| Churn | |||
| Change entropy | |||
| Human Factors | Total authors | ||
| Minor authors | |||
| Major authors | |||
| Author ownership | |||
| Coverage | Proportion of reviewed changes | ||
| Proportion of reviewed churn | |||
| Reviewer experience for module | |||
| Participation | Proportion of self-approved changes | ||
| Proportion of hastily reviewed changes | |||
| Proportion of changes without discussion | |||
| [91]Typical review window | |||
| [99]Typical discussion length | |||
| [144]P. Thongtanunam, S. McIntosh, A. E. Hassan, and H. Iida, “Revisiting code ownership and its relationship with software quality in the scope of modern code review,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE ’16, Austin, Texas, 2016, pp. 1039–1050. | |||
| Type | Metric | Description | Rationale |
| Control | Size | ||
| Churn | |||
| Entropy | |||
| #Contributor | |||
| #Reviewer | |||
| Code Authorship | Top TCO | ||
| Top RSO | |||
| Review-Aware Ownership | |||
| P. Thongtanunam, S. McIntosh, A. E. Hassan, and H. Iida, “Investigating Code Review Practices in Defective Files: An Empirical Study of the Qt System,” in 2015 IEEE/ACM 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, Florence, Italy, 2015, pp. 168–179. | |||
| Type | Metric | Description | Rationale |
| Review Intensity | Number of Iterations | ||
| Discussion Length | |||
| Proportion of Revisions without Feedback | |||
| Churn during Code Review | |||
| Review Participation | Number of Reviewers | ||
| Number of Authors | |||
| Number of Non-Author Voters | |||
| Proportion of Review Disagreement | |||
| Reviewing Time | Review Length | ||
| Number of Authors | |||
| Response Delay | |||
| Average Review Rate | |||
