1 / 16

Streamlined Action Plan Code Review Process

Streamlined Action Plan Code Review Process. Ken Kopatz Software Process Improvement Network (SPIN) Meeting 30 June 2000. Overall Objective. Bugs are being introduced by overlooking of consequences of minor code changes. Desired Results (Accomplish).

pia
Download Presentation

Streamlined Action Plan Code Review Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Streamlined Action PlanCode Review Process Ken Kopatz Software Process Improvement Network (SPIN) Meeting 30 June 2000

  2. Overall Objective • Bugs are being introduced by overlooking of consequences of minor code changes.

  3. Desired Results (Accomplish) • Catch coding errors which may be introduced during code modifications and additions causing regression problems • Catch coding errors which result in unanticipated related behavior • Catch coding errors before System Test

  4. Desired Results (Change) • Implement Peer Reviews of code modifications/additions

  5. Desired Results (Done) • All code is reviewed before being checked into CM for the next release

  6. People • Each of the developers will be impacted • Additional workload in having to review others’ code • Additional workload in preparing code for review • Time freed by not having to respond to errors occurring in the field • Cost and schedule savings in not putting out fires • Perception of more work to do in the same time • Perception of shortened work schedule if not managed properly

  7. People (ctnd) • Software project manager will be affected • Additional workload in reviewing code • Additional coordination ensuring reviews are done • Additional meetings • Release dates will be met • Fire fighting will be reduced

  8. People (ctnd) • Senior managers • Not have to deal with customer complaints • Customer satisfaction will increase • Release schedules will be met with fewer interruptions and shortened System Test schedule

  9. Change Factors • Concern: Additional workload • Extra time will be built into schedule to account for review time • Additional time should be realized from not having to fix problems • Current practice of reviewing Requirements Specs and Functional Design catch problems early and reduce rework

  10. Change Factors (ctnd) • Concern: Personal criticism • Coding standards will establish an objective criteria for review • Current spec reviews are not personal

  11. Change Factors (ctnd) • Concern: What standards should be followed • Coding standard will be written and agreed to • Checklists will provide simple validation for coder as well as reviewer

  12. Change Factors (ctnd) • Concern: Creativity will be stifled • Standards will provide the framework for creativity • Creativity will be in the problem solving

  13. Scope Boundaries • Reviews are limited to all new code and modifications to existing code • Existing code will not be reviewed • Code will be reviewed for style consistent with the existing code • Code will be reviewed for logical errors • Reviewers will consist of the project team

  14. Deliverables

  15. Actions

  16. Actions (ctnd)

More Related