山崎/buggy review の変更点

追加された行はこの色です。
削除された行はこの色です。
山崎/buggy review へ行く。
山崎/buggy review の差分を削除
#author("2020-03-17T14:54:18+09:00","","")
#author("2020-03-17T14:55:15+09:00","","")
[[山崎]]

-[[議事録>buggy review/議事録]]

**ポスター発表での指摘点 [#mce0015b]
-クリティカル？
--"コードレビュー内の単語数"と相関がないか確認する必要がある
--（ざっくり言うと）単語からバギーになるか予測しているが，そもそも予測に問題はないの？
--バギーとクリーンで実際に議論内容が違うことの根拠は？そもそもナイーブベイズでの確率は信頼できる？
--ナイーブベイズのP(c)をちゃんと調整している？
-直せる
--"コードレビューの議論内容"が何を指しているか伝わりづらい
--訓練/テストデータを9:1にしたほうがいいのでは
--プロジェクト足し合わせてデータ数増やしたほうがいいのでは
--既存研究+αの予測モデルだと過学習を起こすのでは
--cinderプロジェクトは半数がバギーレビューだけどそもそも予測する意味があるの？
--文章を特徴量にするくだりの説明が足りていない



**既存研究のメトリクス一覧 [#ica31c25]
-C. Tantithamthavorn, S. McIntosh, A. E. Hassan, and K. Matsumoto, “The Impact of Automated Parameter Optimization on Defect Prediction Models,” arXiv:1801.10270 [cs], Jan. 2018.から引用

--Recent works [74, 90, 91, 99, 144] explore the relationship between modern code review practices and software quality.





|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|c
|>|>|>|[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&#8211;120.|h
|''Type''|''Metric''|''Description''|''Rationale''|h
|Technical|Size (LOC)|||
|~|Chunks|||
|~|Number of files|||
|~|Module|||
|~|&color(red){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|||
|~|&color(blue){Number of reviewer comments};|||
|~|Number of writer comments|||

~

|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|c
|>|>|>|[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&#8211;201.|h
|>|>|>|[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&#8211;2189, Oct. 2016.|h
|>|>|>|[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&#8211;180.|h
|''Type''|''Metric''|''Description''|''Rationale''|h
|Product|Size|||
|~|Complexity|||
|Process|&color(red){Prior defects};|||
|~|Churn|||
|~|Change entropy|||
|Human Factors|&color(green){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|||

~

|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|c
|>|>|>|[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&#8211;1050.|h
|''Type''|''Metric''|''Description''|''Rationale''|h
|Control|Size|||
|~|Churn|||
|~|Entropy|||
|~|#Contributor|||
|~|#Author|||
|~|#Reviewer|||
|Code Authorship|Top TCO|||
|~|Top RSO|||
|Review-Aware Ownership||||
|~|Proportion of minor author & major reviewer|||
|~|Proportion of major author & major reviewer|||
|~|Proportion of minor author & minor reviewer|||
|~|Proportion of major author & minor reviewer|||

~

|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|CENTER:|c
|>|>|>|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&#8211;179.|h
|''Type''|''Metric''|''Description''|''Rationale''|h
|Review Intensity|Number of Iterations|||
|~|&color(blue){Discussion Length};|||
|~|Proportion of Revisions without Feedback|||
|~|Churn during Code Review|||
|Review Participation|Number of Reviewers|||
|~|&color(green){Number of Authors};|||
|~|Number of Non-Author Voters|||
|~|Proportion of Review Disagreement|||
|Reviewing Time|Review Length|||
|~|Number of Authors|||
|~|Response Delay|||
|~|Average Review Rate|||