Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
166 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A Survey on Modern Code Review: Progresses, Challenges and Opportunities (2405.18216v1)

Published 28 May 2024 in cs.SE

Abstract: Over the past decade, modern code review (MCR) has been deemed as a crucial practice of software quality assurance, which is applied to improve software quality and transfer development knowledge within a software team. Despite its importance, MCR is often a complicated and time-consuming activity for practitioners. In recent years, many studies that are dedicated to the comprehension and the improvement of MCR have been explored so that the MCR activity can be carried out more conveniently and efficiently. To provide researchers and practitioners a clear understanding of the current research status on MCR, this paper conducts a systematic literature review of the past years. Given the collected 231 surveyed papers, this paper makes the following five contributions: First, we analyze the research trends of related MCR studies. Second, we provide a taxonomy for the current MCR, encompassing both Improvement Techniques and Understanding Studies. Third, we present the concrete research progress of each novel MCR methodology and prototype tool. Fourth, we exploit the main empirical insights from empirical study and user study that are helpful to improve MCR. Finally, we sum up unsolved challenges and outline several possible research opportunities in the future.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (263)
  1. 30 Years of Software Refactoring Research: A Systematic Literature Review. CoRR abs/2007.02194 (2020). arXiv:2007.02194
  2. Towards verifiable web-based code review systems. J. Comput. Secur. 31, 2 (2023), 153–184.
  3. Sharif Ahmed and Nasir U. Eisty. 2023. Exploring the Advances in Identifying Useful Code Review Comments. In ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, October 26-27, 2023. IEEE, 1–7.
  4. SentiCR: a customized sentiment analysis tool for code review interactions. In Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2017, Urbana, IL, USA, October 30 - November 03, 2017, Grigore Rosu, Massimiliano Di Penta, and Tien N. Nguyen (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 106–111.
  5. Reviewer Assignment Problem: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 76 (2023), 761–827.
  6. Abduljaleel Al-Rubaye and Gita Sukthankar. 2022. Improving Code Review with GitHub Issue Tracking. In IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, ASONAM 2022, Istanbul, Turkey, November 10-13, 2022. IEEE, 210–217.
  7. Why does code review work for open source software communities?. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 25-31, 2019, Joanne M. Atlee, Tevfik Bultan, and Jon Whittle (Eds.). IEEE / ACM, 1073–1083.
  8. Empirical analysis of security-related code reviews in npm packages. J. Syst. Softw. 203 (2023), 111752.
  9. Refactoring Practices in the Context of Modern Code Review: An Industrial Case Study at Xerox. In 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, ICSE (SEIP) 2021, Madrid, Spain, May 25-28, 2021. IEEE, 348–357.
  10. Code Review Practices for Refactoring Changes: An Empirical Study on OpenStack. In 19th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 23-24, 2022. ACM, 689–701.
  11. Hirohisa Aman. 2013. 0-1 Programming Model-Based Method for Planning Code Review Using Bug Fix History. In 20th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC 2013, Ratchathewi, Bangkok, Thailand, December 2-5, 2013 - Volume 2, Pornsiri Muenchaisri and Gregg Rothermel (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 37–42.
  12. Why Did This Reviewed Code Crash? An Empirical Study of Mozilla Firefox. In 25th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC 2018, Nara, Japan, December 4-7, 2018. IEEE, 396–405.
  13. Broadcast vs. Unicast Review Technology: Does It Matter?. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, ICST 2017, Tokyo, Japan, March 13-17, 2017. IEEE Computer Society, 219–229.
  14. Intelligent Code Review Assignment for Large Scale Open Source Software Stacks. In 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2022, Rochester, MI, USA, October 10-14, 2022. ACM, 221:1–221:6.
  15. An empirical study of sentiments in code reviews. Inf. Softw. Technol. 114 (2019), 37–54.
  16. WhoDo: automating reviewer suggestions at scale. In Proceedings of the ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019, Tallinn, Estonia, August 26-30, 2019, Marlon Dumas, Dietmar Pfahl, Sven Apel, and Alessandra Russo (Eds.). ACM, 937–945.
  17. Code Inspection Support for Recurring Changes with Deep Learning in Evolving Software. In 44th IEEE Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference, COMPSAC 2020, Madrid, Spain, July 13-17, 2020. IEEE, 931–942.
  18. Alberto Bacchelli and Christian Bird. 2013. Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’13, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18-26, 2013, David Notkin, Betty H. C. Cheng, and Klaus Pohl (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 712–721.
  19. Modern Code Reviews - Survey of Literature and Practice. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 32, 4 (2023), 107:1–107:61.
  20. Vipin Balachandran. 2013a. Fix-it: An extensible code auto-fix component in Review Bot. In 13th IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation, SCAM 2013, Eindhoven, Netherlands, September 22-23, 2013. IEEE Computer Society, 167–172.
  21. Vipin Balachandran. 2013b. Reducing human effort and improving quality in peer code reviews using automatic static analysis and reviewer recommendation. In 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’13, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18-26, 2013, David Notkin, Betty H. C. Cheng, and Klaus Pohl (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 931–940.
  22. Augmenting Code Review Experience Through Visualization. In Working Conference on Software Visualization, VISSOFT 2021, Luxembourg, September 27-28, 2021. IEEE, 110–114.
  23. Helping Developers Help Themselves: Automatic Decomposition of Code Review Changesets. In 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-24, 2015, Volume 1, Antonia Bertolino, Gerardo Canfora, and Sebastian G. Elbaum (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 134–144.
  24. Code review guidelines for GUI-based testing artifacts. Inf. Softw. Technol. 163 (2023), 107299.
  25. Comparing pre commit reviews and post commit reviews using process simulation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and Systems Process, ICSSP 2016, Austin, Texas, USA, May 14-15, 2016, Dewayne E. Perry and David Raffo (Eds.). ACM, 26–35.
  26. The Choice of Code Review Process: A Survey on the State of the Practice. In Product-Focused Software Process Improvement - 18th International Conference, PROFES 2017, Innsbruck, Austria, November 29 - December 1, 2017, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10611), Michael Felderer, Daniel Méndez Fernández, Burak Turhan, Marcos Kalinowski, Federica Sarro, and Dietmar Winkler (Eds.). Springer, 111–127.
  27. A Faceted Classification Scheme for Change-Based Industrial Code Review Processes. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security, QRS 2016, Vienna, Austria, August 1-3, 2016. IEEE, 74–85.
  28. Factors influencing code review processes in industry. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, FSE 2016, Seattle, WA, USA, November 13-18, 2016, Thomas Zimmermann, Jane Cleland-Huang, and Zhendong Su (Eds.). ACM, 85–96.
  29. On the Optimal Order of Reading Source Code Changes for Review. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2017, Shanghai, China, September 17-22, 2017. IEEE Computer Society, 329–340.
  30. Associating working memory capacity and code change ordering with code review performance. Empir. Softw. Eng. 24, 4 (2019), 1762–1798.
  31. Gabriele Bavota and Barbara Russo. 2015. Four eyes are better than two: On the impact of code reviews on software quality. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2015, Bremen, Germany, September 29 - October 1, 2015, Rainer Koschke, Jens Krinke, and Martin P. Robillard (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 81–90.
  32. The influence of non-technical factors on code review. In 20th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, WCRE 2013, Koblenz, Germany, October 14-17, 2013, Ralf Lämmel, Rocco Oliveto, and Romain Robbes (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 122–131.
  33. Investigating technical and non-technical factors influencing modern code review. Empir. Softw. Eng. 21, 3 (2016), 932–959.
  34. Using auxiliary artifacts during code inspection activity: findings from an exploratory study. In Proceedings of the XVIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality, SBQS 2019, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 28 - November 1, 2019, Adriano Bessa Albuquerque and Ana Luiza Bessa de Paula Barros (Eds.). ACM, 149–157.
  35. Modern code reviews in open-source projects: which problems do they fix?. In 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2014, Proceedings, May 31 - June 1, 2014, Hyderabad, India, Premkumar T. Devanbu, Sung Kim, and Martin Pinzger (Eds.). ACM, 202–211.
  36. Lessons Learned from Building and Deploying a Code Review Analytics Platform. In 12th IEEE/ACM Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-17, 2015, Massimiliano Di Penta, Martin Pinzger, and Romain Robbes (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 191–201.
  37. Amiangshu Bosu and Jeffrey C. Carver. 2013. Impact of Peer Code Review on Peer Impression Formation: A Survey. In 2013 ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, October 10-11, 2013. IEEE Computer Society, 133–142.
  38. Amiangshu Bosu and Jeffrey C. Carver. 2014. Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in OSS projects: an empirical investigation. In 2014 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM ’14, Torino, Italy, September 18-19, 2014, Maurizio Morisio, Tore Dybå, and Marco Torchiano (Eds.). ACM, 33:1–33:10.
  39. Process Aspects and Social Dynamics of Contemporary Code Review: Insights from Open Source Development and Industrial Practice at Microsoft. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 43, 1 (2017), 56–75.
  40. Identifying the characteristics of vulnerable code changes: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, (FSE-22), Hong Kong, China, November 16 - 22, 2014, Shing-Chi Cheung, Alessandro Orso, and Margaret-Anne D. Storey (Eds.). ACM, 257–268.
  41. Characteristics of Useful Code Reviews: An Empirical Study at Microsoft. In 12th IEEE/ACM Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-17, 2015, Massimiliano Di Penta, Martin Pinzger, and Romain Robbes (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 146–156.
  42. Less is More: Supporting Developers in Vulnerability Detection during Code Review. In 44th IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 25-27, 2022. ACM, 1317–1329.
  43. Larissa Braz and Alberto Bacchelli. 2022. Software security during modern code review: the developer’s perspective. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, 2022, Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim (Eds.). ACM, 810–821.
  44. Rodrigo Brito and Marco Túlio Valente. 2021. RAID: Tool Support for Refactoring-Aware Code Reviews. In 29th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC 2021, Madrid, Spain, May 20-21, 2021. IEEE, 265–275.
  45. Structuring Meaningful Code Review Automation in Developer Community. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 127, Part A (2024), 106970.
  46. Knowledge Transfer in Modern Code Review. In ICPC ’20: 28th International Conference on Program Comprehension, Seoul, Republic of Korea, July 13-15, 2020. ACM, 230–240.
  47. A review of code reviewer recommendation studies: Challenges and future directions. Sci. Comput. Program. 208 (2021), 102652.
  48. Robert Chatley and Lawrence Jones. 2018. Diggit: Automated code review via software repository mining. In 25th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2018, Campobasso, Italy, March 20-23, 2018, Rocco Oliveto, Massimiliano Di Penta, and David C. Shepherd (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 567–571.
  49. Leveraging test plan quality to improve code review efficacy. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, 2022, Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim (Eds.). ACM, 1320–1330.
  50. Understanding why we cannot model how long a code review will take: an industrial case study. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, 2022, Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim (Eds.). ACM, 1314–1319.
  51. Tool Support for Managing Clone Refactorings to Facilitate Code Review in Evolving Software. In 41st IEEE Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference, COMPSAC 2017, Turin, Italy, July 4-8, 2017. Volume 1, Sorel Reisman, Sheikh Iqbal Ahamed, Claudio Demartini, Thomas M. Conte, Ling Liu, William R. Claycomb, Motonori Nakamura, Edmundo Tovar, Stelvio Cimato, Chung-Horng Lung, Hiroki Takakura, Ji-Jiang Yang, Toyokazu Akiyama, Zhiyong Zhang, and Kamrul Hasan (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 288–297.
  52. Moataz Chouchen and Ali Ouni. 2024. A multi-objective effort-aware approach for early code review prediction and prioritization. Empir. Softw. Eng. 29, 1 (2024), 29.
  53. Anti-patterns in Modern Code Review: Symptoms and Prevalence. In 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2021, Honolulu, HI, USA, March 9-12, 2021. IEEE, 531–535.
  54. Learning to Predict Code Review Completion Time In Modern Code Review. Empir. Softw. Eng. 28, 4 (2023), 82.
  55. How social interactions can affect Modern Code Review. Frontiers in Computer Science 5 (2023), 1178040.
  56. Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT) Models as a Code Review Feedback Tool in Computer Science Programs. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 39, 1 (2023), 38–47.
  57. Code Review is just reviewing code? A qualitative study with practitioners in industry. In 35th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, SBES 2021, Joinville, Santa Catarina, Brazil, 27 September 2021 - 1 October 2021, Cristiano D. Vasconcellos, Karina Girardi Roggia, Vanessa Collere, and Paulo Bousfield (Eds.). ACM, 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474624.3477063
  58. What really matters in Code Review? A study about challenges and opportunities related to code review in industry. In SBQS ’21: XX Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality, Virtual Event, Brazil, November 8 - 11, 2021, Rodrigo Pereira dos Santos, Sandro Ronaldo Bezerra Oliveira, Ismayle de Sousa Santos, Sabrina Marczak, Davi Viana, Edna Dias Canedo, Adriano Bessa Albuquerque, Marco Paludo, Ana Regina Rocha, Ivan Machado, Uirá Kulesza, Vinícius Garcia, Gleison Santos, Natasha M. Costa Valentim, Monalessa Barcellos, Ana Regina Cavalcanti da Rocha, Monalessa Perini Barcellos, Sheila S. Reinehr, Tayana Conte, Awdren L. Fontão, and Crescêncio Lima (Eds.). ACM, 18.
  59. Automatic Decomposition of Java Open Source Pull Requests: A Replication Study. In SOFSEM 2018: Theory and Practice of Computer Science - 44th International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Computer Science, Krems, Austria, January 29 - February 2, 2018, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10706), A Min Tjoa, Ladjel Bellatreche, Stefan Biffl, Jan van Leeuwen, and Jirí Wiedermann (Eds.). Springer, 255–268.
  60. Nicole Davila and Ingrid Nunes. 2021. A systematic literature review and taxonomy of modern code review. J. Syst. Softw. 177 (2021), 110951.
  61. A Security Perspective on Code Review: The Case of Chromium. In 16th IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation, SCAM 2016, Raleigh, NC, USA, October 2-3, 2016. IEEE Computer Society, 21–30.
  62. The effects of change decomposition on code review - a controlled experiment. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 5 (2019), e193. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.193
  63. Survey on Pains and Best Practices of Code Review. In 28th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC 2021, Taipei, Taiwan, December 6-9, 2021. IEEE, 482–491.
  64. Eduardo Witter dos Santos and Ingrid Nunes. 2018. Investigating the effectiveness of peer code review in distributed software development based on objective and subjective data. J. Softw. Eng. Res. Dev. 6 (2018), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-018-0058-0
  65. Confusion Detection in Code Reviews. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2017, Shanghai, China, September 17-22, 2017. IEEE Computer Society, 549–553.
  66. Communicative Intention in Code Review Questions. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2018, Madrid, Spain, September 23-29, 2018. IEEE Computer Society, 519–523.
  67. Confusion in Code Reviews: Reasons, Impacts, and Coping Strategies. In 26th IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2019, Hangzhou, China, February 24-27, 2019, Xinyu Wang, David Lo, and Emad Shihab (Eds.). IEEE, 49–60.
  68. An exploratory study on confusion in code reviews. Empir. Softw. Eng. 26, 1 (2021), 12.
  69. Predicting developers’ negative feelings about code review. In ICSE ’20: 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Seoul, South Korea, 27 June - 19 July, 2020, Gregg Rothermel and Doo-Hwan Bae (Eds.). ACM, 174–185.
  70. Nasir U. Eisty and Jeffrey C. Carver. 2022. Developers perception of peer code review in research software development. Empir. Softw. Eng. 27, 1 (2022), 13.
  71. An empirical study of design discussions in code review. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2018, Oulu, Finland, October 11-12, 2018, Markku Oivo, Daniel Méndez Fernández, and Audris Mockus (Eds.). ACM, 11:1–11:10.
  72. Early prediction of merged code changes to prioritize reviewing tasks. Empir. Softw. Eng. 23, 6 (2018), 3346–3393.
  73. Individual, Social and Personnel Factors Influencing Modern Code Review Process. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS). 40–45.
  74. Understanding the Impact of Feedback on Knowledge Sharing in Modern Code Review. In 2019 IEEE 6th International Conference on Engineering Technologies and Applied Sciences (ICETAS). 1–5.
  75. The ”Shut the f**k up” Phenomenon: Characterizing Incivility in Open Source Code Review Discussions. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2 (2021), 353:1–353:35.
  76. CloneMap: A Clone-Aware Code Inspection Tool in Evolving Software. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Electro/Information Technology, EIT 2018, Rochester, MI, USA, May 3-5, 2018. IEEE, 368–372.
  77. First come first served: the impact of file position on code review. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, 2022, Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim (Eds.). ACM, 483–494.
  78. Graph-based visualization of merge requests for code review. J. Syst. Softw. 195 (2023), 111506.
  79. The evolution of the code during review: an investigation on review changes. Empir. Softw. Eng. 27, 7 (2022), 177.
  80. What happens in my code reviews? An investigation on automatically classifying review changes. Empir. Softw. Eng. 27, 4 (2022), 89.
  81. Understanding code snippets in code reviews: a preliminary study of the OpenStack community. In Proceedings of the 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC 2022, Virtual Event, May 16-17, 2022, Ayushi Rastogi, Rosalia Tufano, Gabriele Bavota, Venera Arnaoudova, and Sonia Haiduc (Eds.). ACM, 152–156.
  82. Refactoring-aware code review. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). 71–79.
  83. ”Was my contribution fairly reviewed?”: a framework to study the perception of fairness in modern code reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 03, 2018, Michel Chaudron, Ivica Crnkovic, Marsha Chechik, and Mark Harman (Eds.). ACM, 523–534.
  84. Interpersonal Conflicts During Code Review: Developers’ Experience and Practices. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW1 (2022), 98:1–98:33.
  85. Competencies for Code Review. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–33.
  86. Do explicit review strategies improve code review performance? Towards understanding the role of cognitive load. Empir. Softw. Eng. 27, 4 (2022), 99.
  87. Work Practices and Challenges in Pull-Based Development: The Integrator’s Perspective. In 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-24, 2015, Volume 1, Antonia Bertolino, Gerardo Canfora, and Sebastian G. Elbaum (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 358–368.
  88. Concerns identified in code review: A fine-grained, faceted classification. Inf. Softw. Technol. 153 (2023), 107054.
  89. Destructive Criticism in Software Code Review Impacts Inclusion. 6, CSCW2 (2022).
  90. Decomposing Composite Changes for Code Review and Regression Test Selection in Evolving Software. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 34, 2 (2019), 416–436.
  91. Anshul Gupta. 2018. Intelligent code reviews using deep learning.
  92. Factoring Expertise, Workload, and Turnover Into Code Review Recommendation. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 50, 4 (2024), 884–899.
  93. Does code review really remove coding convention violations?. In 20th IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation, SCAM 2020, Adelaide, Australia, September 28 - October 2, 2020. IEEE, 43–53.
  94. Code smells detection via modern code review: a study of the OpenStack and Qt communities. Empir. Softw. Eng. 27, 6 (2022), 127.
  95. Aiding Code Change Understanding with Semantic Change Impact Analysis. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2019, Cleveland, OH, USA, September 29 - October 4, 2019. IEEE, 202–212.
  96. Automatically recommending code reviewers based on their expertise: an empirical comparison. In Proceedings of the 31st IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2016, Singapore, September 3-7, 2016, David Lo, Sven Apel, and Sarfraz Khurshid (Eds.). ACM, 99–110.
  97. Using a balanced scorecard to identify opportunities to improve code review effectiveness: an industrial experience report. Empir. Softw. Eng. 26, 6 (2021), 129.
  98. Visual Expertise in Code Reviews: Using Holistic Models of Image Perception to Analyze and Interpret Eye Movements. In Proceedings of the 2023 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, ETRA 2023, Tübingen, Germany, 30 May 2023 - 2 June 2023, Enkelejda Kasneci, Frédérick Shic, and Mohamed Khamis (Eds.). ACM, 85:1–85:7.
  99. Supporting Automatic Code Review via Design. In 2013 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Software Security and Reliability Companion. 211–218.
  100. Towards automating code review at scale. In ESEC/FSE. ACM, 1479–1482.
  101. Can Formal Methods Improve the Efficiency of Code Reviews?. In Integrated Formal Methods - 12th International Conference, IFM 2016, Reykjavik, Iceland, June 1-5, 2016, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9681), Erika Ábrahám and Marieke Huisman (Eds.). Springer, 3–19.
  102. iReview: an Intelligent Code Review Evaluation Tool using Biofeedback. In 32nd IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, ISSRE 2021, Wuhan, China, October 25-28, 2021, Zhi Jin, Xuandong Li, Jianwen Xiang, Leonardo Mariani, Ting Liu, Xiao Yu, and Nahgmeh Ivaki (Eds.). IEEE, 476–485.
  103. The Impact of a Low Level of Agreement Among Reviewers in a Code Review Process. In Open Source Systems: Integrating Communities - 12th IFIP WG 2.13 International Conference, OSS 2016, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 30 - June 2, 2016, Proceedings (IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 472), Kevin Crowston, Imed Hammouda, Björn Lundell, Gregorio Robles, Jonas Gamalielsson, and Juho Lindman (Eds.). Springer, 97–110.
  104. Understanding Developer Commenting in Code Reviews. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 102-D, 12 (2019), 2423–2432.
  105. The review linkage graph for code review analytics: a recovery approach and empirical study. In Proceedings of the ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019, Tallinn, Estonia, August 26-30, 2019, Marlon Dumas, Dietmar Pfahl, Sven Apel, and Alessandra Russo (Eds.). ACM, 578–589.
  106. Code Reviews With Divergent Review Scores: An Empirical Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communities. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 48, 2 (2022), 69–81.
  107. CommentFinder: a simpler, faster, more accurate code review comments recommendation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, 2022, Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim (Eds.). ACM, 507–519.
  108. Where Should I Look at? Recommending Lines that Reviewers Should Pay Attention To. In IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2022, Honolulu, HI, USA, March 15-18, 2022. IEEE, 1034–1045.
  109. Code Review Knowledge Perception: Fusing Multi-Features for Salient-Class Location. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 48, 5 (2022), 1463–1479.
  110. Reviewing rounds prediction for code patches. Empir. Softw. Eng. 27, 1 (2022), 7.
  111. Review4Repair: Code review aided automatic program repairing. Inf. Softw. Technol. 143 (2022), 106765.
  112. On potential improvements in the analysis of the evolution of themes in code review comments. In 49th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, SEAA 2023, Durres, Albania, September 6-8, 2023. IEEE, 340–347.
  113. Nasif Imtiaz and Laurie A. Williams. 2023. Are Your Dependencies Code Reviewed?: Measuring Code Review Coverage in Dependency Updates. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 49, 11 (2023), 4932–4945.
  114. Early prediction for merged vs abandoned code changes in modern code reviews. Inf. Softw. Technol. 142 (2022), 106756.
  115. Using Metrics to Track Code Review Performance. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2017, Karlskrona, Sweden, June 15-16, 2017, Emilia Mendes, Steve Counsell, and Kai Petersen (Eds.). ACM, 214–223.
  116. How Developers Modify Pull Requests in Code Review. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 71, 3 (2022), 1325–1339.
  117. Who should comment on this pull request? Analyzing attributes for more accurate commenter recommendation in pull-based development. Inf. Softw. Technol. 84 (2017), 48–62.
  118. A Collaborative Code Review Platform for GitHub. In 21st International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, ICECCS 2016, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, November 6-8, 2016, Hai Wang and Mounir Mokhtari (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 191–196.
  119. didiffff: a viewer for comparing changes in both code and execution traces. In Proceedings of the 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC 2022, Virtual Event, May 16-17, 2022, Ayushi Rastogi, Rosalia Tufano, Gabriele Bavota, Venera Arnaoudova, and Sonia Haiduc (Eds.). ACM, 528–532.
  120. Using Paragraph Vectors to improve our existing code review assisting tool-CRUSO. In ISEC 2021: 14th Innovations in Software Engineering Conference, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, February 25-27, 2021, Durga Prasad Mohapatra, Samaresh Mishra, Tony Clark, Alpana Dubey, Richa Sharma, and Lov Kumar (Eds.). ACM, 10:1–10:11.
  121. Diane Kelly and Terry Shepard. 2002. Qualitative observations from software code inspection experiments. In Proceedings of the 2002 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, September 30 - October 3, 2002, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Darlene A. Stewart and J. Howard Johnson (Eds.). IBM, 5.
  122. Understanding automated code review process and developer experience in industry. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, 2022, Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim (Eds.). ACM, 1398–1407.
  123. Recommending Code Reviewers for Proprietary Software Projects: A Large Scale Study. In IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2022, Honolulu, HI, USA, March 15-18, 2022. IEEE, 630–640.
  124. Code review quality: how developers see it. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA, May 14-22, 2016, Laura K. Dillon, Willem Visser, and Laurie A. Williams (Eds.). ACM, 1028–1038.
  125. Investigating code review quality: Do people and participation matter?. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2015, Bremen, Germany, September 29 - October 1, 2015, Rainer Koschke, Jens Krinke, and Martin P. Robillard (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 111–120.
  126. Does Reviewer Recommendation Help Developers? IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 46, 7 (2020), 710–731.
  127. Mining Code Review Data to Understand Waiting Times Between Acceptance and Merging: An Empirical Analysis. In 19th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 23-24, 2022. ACM, 579–590.
  128. Are We Speeding Up or Slowing Down? On Temporal Aspects of Code Velocity. In 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2023, Melbourne, Australia, May 15-16, 2023. IEEE, 267–271.
  129. Gunnar Kudrjavets and Ayushi Rastogi. 2024. Does code review speed matter for practitioners? Empir. Softw. Eng. 29, 1 (2024), 7.
  130. Harsh Lal and Gaurav Pahwa. 2017. Code review analysis of software system using machine learning techniques. In 2017 11th International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Control (ISCO). 8–13.
  131. Quoc V. Le and Tomás Mikolov. 2014. Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents. In Proceedings of the 31th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2014, Beijing, China, 21-26 June 2014 (JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, Vol. 32). JMLR.org, 1188–1196.
  132. Code Reviewer Recommendation for Architecture Violations: An Exploratory Study. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2023, Oulu, Finland, June 14-16, 2023. ACM, 42–51.
  133. Symptoms of Architecture Erosion in Code Reviews: A Study of Two OpenStack Projects. In 19th IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture, ICSA 2022, Honolulu, HI, USA, March 12-15, 2022. IEEE, 24–35.
  134. Automating code review activities by large-scale pre-training. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, 2022, Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim (Eds.). ACM, 1035–1047.
  135. What Are They Talking About? Analyzing Code Reviews in Pull-Based Development Model. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 32, 6 (2017), 1060–1075.
  136. Hong Yi Lin and Patanamon Thongtanunam. 2023. Towards Automated Code Reviews: Does Learning Code Structure Help?. In IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2023, Taipa, Macao, March 21-24, 2023, Tao Zhang, Xin Xia, and Nicole Novielli (Eds.). IEEE, 703–707.
  137. A code reviewer recommendation approach based on attentive neighbor embedding propagation. Electronics 12, 9 (2023), 2113.
  138. Rigorous code review by reverse engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 133 (2021), 106503.
  139. CommitBART: A Large Pre-trained Model for GitHub Commits. CoRR abs/2208.08100 (2022).
  140. LLaMA-Reviewer: Advancing Code Review Automation with Large Language Models through Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning. In 34th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, ISSRE 2023, Florence, Italy, October 9-12, 2023. IEEE, 647–658.
  141. Comparing sequential and parallel code review techniques for formative feedback. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, January 30 - February 02, 2018, Raina Mason and Simon (Eds.). ACM, 45–52.
  142. Code Reviewing in the Trenches: Challenges and Best Practices. IEEE Software 35, 4 (2018), 34–42.
  143. Michal Madera and Rafal Tomon. 2017. A case study on machine learning model for code review expert system in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 2017 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, FedCSIS 2017, Prague, Czech Republic, September 3-6, 2017 (Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Vol. 11), Maria Ganzha, Leszek A. Maciaszek, and Marcin Paprzycki (Eds.). 1357–1363.
  144. Naser Al Madi. 2022. How Readable is Model-generated Code? Examining Readability and Visual Inspection of GitHub Copilot. In 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2022, Rochester, MI, USA, October 10-14, 2022. ACM, 205:1–205:5.
  145. Mika Mäntylä and Casper Lassenius. 2009. What Types of Defects Are Really Discovered in Code Reviews? IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35, 3 (2009), 430–448.
  146. An empirical study of the impact of modern code review practices on software quality. Empir. Softw. Eng. 21, 5 (2016), 2146–2189.
  147. Measuring Cognition Levels in Collaborative Processes for Software Engineering Code Inspections. In IT Revolutions - First International ICST Conference, IT Revolutions 2008, Venice, Italy, December 17-19, 2008, Revised Selected Papers (Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, Vol. 11), Mihaela Ulieru, Peter Palensky, and René Doursat (Eds.). Springer, 32–43.
  148. Sahar Mehrpour and Thomas D LaToza. 2023. Can static analysis tools find more defects? a qualitative study of design rule violations found by code review. Empirical Software Engineering 28, 1 (2023), 5.
  149. Semantics-assisted code review: an efficient toolchain and a user study. In Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2017, Urbana, IL, USA, October 30 - November 03, 2017, Grigore Rosu, Massimiliano Di Penta, and Tien N. Nguyen (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 554–565.
  150. An empirical investigation of socio-technical code review metrics and security vulnerabilities. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Social Software Engineering, SSE 2014, Hong Kong, China, November 17, 2014, Filippo Lanubile and Raian Ali (Eds.). ACM, 37–44.
  151. LASE: locating and applying systematic edits by learning from examples. In 35th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE ’13, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 18-26, 2013, David Notkin, Betty H. C. Cheng, and Klaus Pohl (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 502–511.
  152. Rahul Mishra and Ashish Sureka. 2014. Mining Peer Code Review System for Computing Effort and Contribution Metrics for Patch Reviewers. In IEEE 4th Workshop on Mining Unstructured Data, MUD@ICSME 2014, Victoria, BC, Canada, 30 September, 2014. IEEE Computer Society, 11–15.
  153. Do code review practices impact design quality? A case study of the Qt, VTK, and ITK projects. In 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, SANER 2015, Montreal, QC, Canada, March 2-6, 2015, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, Bram Adams, and Alexander Serebrenik (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 171–180.
  154. Towards Better Code Reviews: Using Mutation Testing to Improve Reviewer Attention. In IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software and System Processes, ICSSP 2023, Melbourne, Australia, May 14-15, 2023. IEEE, 92–96.
  155. WAP: Does Reviewer Age Affect Code Review Performance?. In 28th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, ISSRE 2017, Toulouse, France, October 23-26, 2017. IEEE Computer Society, 164–169.
  156. Engineering Impacts of Anonymous Author Code Review: A Field Experiment. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 48, 7 (2022), 2495–2509.
  157. Systemic Gender Inequities in Who Reviews Code. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–59.
  158. Code Review of Build System Specifications: Prevalence, Purposes, Patterns, and Perceptions. In 45th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2023, Melbourne, Australia, May 14-20, 2023. IEEE, 1213–1224.
  159. Automated Code Review Comment Classification to Improve Modern Code Reviews. In Software Quality: The Next Big Thing in Software Engineering and Quality - 14th International Conference on Software Quality, SWQD 2022, Vienna, Austria, May 17-19, 2022, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 439), Daniel Méndez, Manuel Wimmer, Dietmar Winkler, Stefan Biffl, and Johannes Bergsmann (Eds.). Springer, 23–40.
  160. Search-Based Peer Reviewers Recommendation in Modern Code Review. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2016, Raleigh, NC, USA, October 2-7, 2016. IEEE Computer Society, 367–377.
  161. Matheus Paixão and Paulo Henrique M. Maia. 2019. Rebasing in Code Review Considered Harmful: A Large-Scale Empirical Investigation. In 19th International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation, SCAM 2019, Cleveland, OH, USA, September 30 - October 1, 2019. IEEE, 45–55.
  162. Behind the Intents: An In-depth Empirical Study on Software Refactoring in Modern Code Review. In MSR ’20: 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 29-30 June, 2020, Sunghun Kim, Georgios Gousios, Sarah Nadi, and Joseph Hejderup (Eds.). ACM, 125–136.
  163. Nivishree Palvannan and Chris Brown. 2023. Suggestion Bot: Analyzing the Impact of Automated Suggested Changes on Code Reviews. In 5th IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Bots in Software Engineering, BotSE@ICSE 2023, Melbourne, Australia, May 20, 2023. IEEE, 33–37.
  164. Prahar Pandya and Saurabh Tiwari. 2022. CORMS: a GitHub and Gerrit based hybrid code reviewer recommendation approach for modern code review. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, 2022, Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim (Eds.). ACM, 546–557.
  165. Assessing MCR Discussion Usefulness Using Semantic Similarity. In 6th International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering in Practice, IWESEP 2014, Osaka, Japan, November 12-13, 2014. IEEE Computer Society, 49–54.
  166. Would static analysis tools help developers with code reviews?. In 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, SANER 2015, Montreal, QC, Canada, March 2-6, 2015, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, Bram Adams, and Alexander Serebrenik (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 161–170.
  167. Sebastiano Panichella and Nik Zaugg. 2020. An Empirical Investigation of Relevant Changes and Automation Needs in Modern Code Review. Empir. Softw. Eng. 25, 6 (2020), 4833–4872.
  168. Information Needs in Contemporary Code Review. Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. 2, CSCW (2018), 135:1–135:27.
  169. Expressions of Sentiments during Code Reviews: Male vs. Female. In 26th IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2019, Hangzhou, China, February 24-27, 2019, Xinyu Wang, David Lo, and Emad Shihab (Eds.). IEEE, 26–37.
  170. Why Security Defects Go Unnoticed during Code Reviews? A Case-Control Study of the Chromium OS Project. In 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2021, Madrid, Spain, 22-30 May 2021. IEEE, 1373–1385.
  171. PrefixSpan,: mining sequential patterns efficiently by prefix-projected pattern growth. In Proceedings 17th International Conference on Data Engineering. 215–224.
  172. Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update. Inf. Softw. Technol. 64 (2015), 1–18.
  173. Please fix this mutant: How do developers resolve mutants surfaced during code review?. In 45th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, SEIP@ICSE 2023, Melbourne, Australia, May 14-20, 2023. IEEE, 150–161.
  174. D-ACT: Towards Diff-Aware Code Transformation for Code Review Under a Time-Wise Evaluation. In IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2023, Taipa, Macao, March 21-24, 2023, Tao Zhang, Xin Xia, and Nicole Novielli (Eds.). IEEE, 296–307.
  175. Detecting Interpersonal Conflict in Issues and Code Review: Cross Pollinating Open- and Closed-Source Approaches. In 44th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Society ICSE (SEIS) 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 22-24, 2022. IEEE/ACM, 41–55.
  176. CoRReCT: code reviewer recommendation in GitHub based on cross-project and technology experience. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA, May 14-22, 2016 - Companion Volume, Laura K. Dillon, Willem Visser, and Laurie A. Williams (Eds.). ACM, 222–231.
  177. Predicting usefulness of code review comments using textual features and developer experience. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina, May 20-28, 2017, Jesús M. González-Barahona, Abram Hindle, and Lin Tan (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 215–226.
  178. Integrating Visual Aids to Enhance the Code Reviewer Selection Process. In IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2023, Bogotá, Colombia, October 1-6, 2023. IEEE, 293–305.
  179. Example Driven Code Review Explanation. In ESEM ’22: ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Helsinki Finland, September 19 - 23, 2022, Fernanda Madeiral, Casper Lassenius, Tayana Conte, and Tomi Männistö (Eds.). ACM, 307–312.
  180. What makes a code change easier to review: an empirical investigation on code change reviewability. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2018, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, November 04-09, 2018, Gary T. Leavens, Alessandro Garcia, and Corina S. Pasareanu (Eds.). ACM, 201–212.
  181. Comments on Comments: Where Code Review and Documentation Meet. In 19th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 23-24, 2022. ACM, 18–22.
  182. Multi-objective code reviewer recommendations: balancing expertise, availability and collaborations. Autom. Softw. Eng. 27, 3 (2020), 301–328.
  183. Peter C. Rigby and Christian Bird. 2013. Convergent contemporary software peer review practices. In Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE’13, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, August 18-26, 2013, Bertrand Meyer, Luciano Baresi, and Mira Mezini (Eds.). ACM, 202–212.
  184. Peer Review on Open-Source Software Projects: Parameters, Statistical Models, and Theory. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 23, 4 (2014), 35:1–35:33.
  185. Distilling Quality Enhancing Comments from Code Reviews to Underpin Reviewer Recommendation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2024).
  186. The Impacts of Supporting Materials on Code Reading: A Controlled Experiment. In 2015 Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC 2015, New Delhi, India, December 1-4, 2015, Jing Sun, Y. Raghu Reddy, Arun Bahulkar, and Anjaneyulu Pasala (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 88–95.
  187. Modeling Review History for Reviewer Recommendation: A Hypergraph Approach. In 44th IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 25-27, 2022. ACM, 1381–1392.
  188. The impact of human factors on the participation decision of reviewers in modern code review. Empir. Softw. Eng. 24, 2 (2019), 973–1016.
  189. ADCR: An Adaptive TOOL to select ”Appropriate Developer for Code Review” based on Code Context. In 11th IEEE Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference, UEMCON 2020, New York City, NY, USA, October 28-31, 2020. IEEE, 583–591.
  190. Modern code review: a case study at google. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, ICSE (SEIP) 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 03, 2018, Frances Paulisch and Jan Bosch (Eds.). ACM, 181–190.
  191. Nishrith Saini and Ricardo Britto. 2021. Using Machine Intelligence to Prioritise Code Review Requests. In 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, ICSE (SEIP) 2021, Madrid, Spain, May 25-28, 2021. IEEE, 11–20.
  192. GANDER: a Platform for Exploration of Gaze-driven Assistance in Code Review. In Proceedings of the 2023 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, ETRA 2023, Tübingen, Germany, 30 May 2023 - 2 June 2023, Enkelejda Kasneci, Frédérick Shic, and Mohamed Khamis (Eds.). ACM, 84:1–84:7.
  193. ToxiSpanSE: An Explainable Toxicity Detection in Code Review Comments. In ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, October 26-27, 2023. IEEE, 1–12.
  194. Automated Identification of Toxic Code Reviews Using ToxiCR. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 32, 5 (2023), 118:1–118:32.
  195. Neela Sawant and Srinivasan H. Sengamedu. 2023. Code Compliance Assessment as a Learning Problem. In 45th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, SEIP@ICSE 2023, Melbourne, Australia, May 14-20, 2023. IEEE, 445–454.
  196. Oussama Ben Sghaier and Houari A. Sahraoui. 2023. A Multi-Step Learning Approach to Assist Code Review. In IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2023, Taipa, Macao, March 21-24, 2023, Tao Zhang, Xin Xia, and Nicole Novielli (Eds.). IEEE, 450–460.
  197. Using nudges to accelerate code reviews at scale. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2022, Singapore, Singapore, November 14-18, 2022, Abhik Roychoudhury, Cristian Cadar, and Miryung Kim (Eds.). ACM, 472–482.
  198. Shipra Sharma and Balwinder Sodhi. 2019. Using Stack Overflow content to assist in code review. Software: Practice and Experience 49, 8 (2019), 1255–1277.
  199. Automatic Code Review by Learning the Revision of Source Code. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 4910–4917.
  200. A study of the quality-impacting practices of modern code review at Sony mobile. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2016, Austin, TX, USA, May 14-22, 2016 - Companion Volume, Laura K. Dillon, Willem Visser, and Laurie A. Williams (Eds.). ACM, 212–221.
  201. Recommending Code Reviews Leveraging Code Changes with Structured Information Retrieval. In IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2023, Bogotá, Colombia, October 1-6, 2023. IEEE, 194–206.
  202. Evaluating how static analysis tools can reduce code review effort. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VL/HCC 2017, Raleigh, NC, USA, October 11-14, 2017, Austin Z. Henley, Peter Rogers, and Anita Sarma (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 101–105.
  203. CORE: Automating Review Recommendation for Code Changes. In 27th IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering, SANER 2020, London, ON, Canada, February 18-21, 2020, Kostas Kontogiannis, Foutse Khomh, Alexander Chatzigeorgiou, Marios-Eleftherios Fokaefs, and Minghui Zhou (Eds.). IEEE, 284–295.
  204. Understanding the Experience of Code Review: Misalignments, Attention, and Units of Analysis. In EASE 2022: The International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2022, Gothenburg, Sweden, June 13 - 15, 2022, Miroslaw Staron, Christian Berger, Jocelyn Simmonds, and Rafael Prikladnicki (Eds.). ACM, 170–179.
  205. Predicting Defectiveness of Software Patches. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2016, Ciudad Real, Spain, September 8-9, 2016. ACM, 22:1–22:10.
  206. When testing meets code review: why and how developers review tests. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 27 - June 03, 2018, Michel Chaudron, Ivica Crnkovic, Marsha Chechik, and Mark Harman (Eds.). ACM, 677–687.
  207. Primers or reminders?: the effects of existing review comments on code review. In ICSE ’20: 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering, Seoul, South Korea, 27 June - 19 July, 2020, Gregg Rothermel and Doo-Hwan Bae (Eds.). ACM, 1171–1182.
  208. Test-driven code review: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2019, Montreal, QC, Canada, May 25-31, 2019, Joanne M. Atlee, Tevfik Bultan, and Jon Whittle (Eds.). IEEE / ACM, 1061–1072. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00110
  209. Does Code Review Promote Conformance? A Study of OpenStack Patches. In 18th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2021, Madrid, Spain, May 17-19, 2021. IEEE, 444–448.
  210. Code reviews in open source projects : how do gender biases affect participation and outcomes? Empir. Softw. Eng. 28, 4 (2023), 92.
  211. Reviewer Recommendation using Software Artifact Traceability Graphs. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering, PROMISE 2019, Recife, Brazil, September 18, 2019, Leandro L. Minku, Foutse Khomh, and Jean Petric (Eds.). ACM, 66–75.
  212. RSTrace+: Reviewer suggestion using software artifact traceability graphs. Inf. Softw. Technol. 130 (2021), 106455.
  213. Investigating the impact of peer code review and pair programming on test-driven development. In IEEE SOUTHEASTCON 2014. 1–5.
  214. Yida Tao and Sunghun Kim. 2015. Partitioning Composite Code Changes to Facilitate Code Review. In 12th IEEE/ACM Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-17, 2015, Massimiliano Di Penta, Martin Pinzger, and Romain Robbes (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 180–190.
  215. Detection and Elimination of Systematic Labeling Bias in Code Reviewer Recommendation Systems. In EASE 2021: Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, June 21-24, 2021, Ruzanna Chitchyan, Jingyue Li, Barbara Weber, and Tao Yue (Eds.). ACM, 181–190.
  216. Ewan D. Tempero and Yu-Cheng Tu. 2021. Assessing Understanding of Maintainability using Code Review. In ACE ’21: 23rd Australasian Computing Education Conference, Auckland, New Zealand (and virtually), 2-5February, 2021, Claudia Szabo and Judy Sheard (Eds.). ACM, 40–47.
  217. Christopher Thompson and David A. Wagner. 2017. A Large-Scale Study of Modern Code Review and Security in Open Source Projects. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering, PROMISE 2017, Toronto, Canada, November 8, 2017, Burak Turhan, David Bowes, and Emad Shihab (Eds.). ACM, 83–92.
  218. Investigating Code Review Practices in Defective Files: An Empirical Study of the Qt System. In 12th IEEE/ACM Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-17, 2015, Massimiliano Di Penta, Martin Pinzger, and Romain Robbes (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 168–179.
  219. Review participation in modern code review - An empirical study of the android, Qt, and OpenStack projects. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22, 2 (2017), 768–817.
  220. AutoTransform: Automated Code Transformation to Support Modern Code Review Process. In 44th IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 25-27, 2022. ACM, 237–248.
  221. Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review. In 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, SANER 2015, Montreal, QC, Canada, March 2-6, 2015, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, Bram Adams, and Alexander Serebrenik (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 141–150.
  222. Code Review Automation: Strengths and Weaknesses of the State of the Art. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 50, 2 (2024), 338–353.
  223. Using Pre-Trained Models to Boost Code Review Automation. In 44th IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 25-27, 2022. ACM, 2291–2302.
  224. Towards Automating Code Review Activities. In 43rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2021, Madrid, Spain, 22-30 May 2021. IEEE, 163–174.
  225. Asif Kamal Turzo and Amiangshu Bosu. 2024. What makes a code review useful to OpenDev developers? An empirical investigation. Empir. Softw. Eng. 29, 1 (2024), 6.
  226. Towards Automated Classification of Code Review Feedback to Support Analytics. In ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, October 26-27, 2023. IEEE, 1–12.
  227. Code review: Veni, ViDI, vici. In 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, SANER 2015, Montreal, QC, Canada, March 2-6, 2015, Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc, Bram Adams, and Alexander Serebrenik (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 151–160.
  228. Predicting Design Impactful Changes in Modern Code Review: A Large-Scale Empirical Study. In 18th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2021, Madrid, Spain, May 17-19, 2021. IEEE, 471–482.
  229. How Does Modern Code Review Impact Software Design Degradation? An In-depth Empirical Study. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). 511–522.
  230. How is IF Statement Fixed Through Code Review? A Case Study of Qt Project. In 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops, ISSRE Workshops, Toulouse, France, October 23-26, 2017. IEEE Computer Society, 207–213.
  231. Impact of Coding Style Checker on Code Review - A Case Study on the OpenStack Projects. In 9th International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering in Practice, IWESEP 2018, Nara, Japan, December 4, 2018. IEEE, 31–36.
  232. Mining Source Code Improvement Patterns from Similar Code Review Works. In 13th IEEE International Workshop on Software Clones, IWSC 2019, Hangzhou, China, February 24, 2019, Eunjong Choi and Daqing Hou (Eds.). IEEE, 13–19.
  233. Automatically Prioritizing Pull Requests. In 12th IEEE/ACM Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, MSR 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-17, 2015, Massimiliano Di Penta, Martin Pinzger, and Romain Robbes (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 357–361.
  234. Affect Recognition in Code Review: An In-situ Biometric Study of Reviewer’s Affect. J. Syst. Softw. 159 (2020).
  235. Multi-Perspective Visualization to Assist Code Change Review. In 24th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, APSEC 2017, Nanjing, China, December 4-8, 2017, Jian Lv, He Jason Zhang, Mike Hinchey, and Xiao Liu (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 564–569.
  236. Automatic patch linkage detection in code review using textual content and file location features. Inf. Softw. Technol. 139 (2021), 106637.
  237. Can we benchmark Code Review studies? A systematic mapping study of methodology, dataset, and metric. J. Syst. Softw. 180 (2021), 111009.
  238. Accept or Not? An Empirical Study on Analyzing the Factors that Affect the Outcomes of Modern Code Review?. In 21st IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security, QRS 2021, Hainan, China, December 6-10, 2021. IEEE, 946–955.
  239. Understanding shared links and their intentions to meet information needs in modern code review. Empir. Softw. Eng. 26, 5 (2021), 96.
  240. CoRA: Decomposing and Describing Tangled Code Changes for Reviewer. In 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2019, San Diego, CA, USA, November 11-15, 2019. IEEE, 1050–1061.
  241. Why is my code change abandoned? Inf. Softw. Technol. 110 (2019), 108–120.
  242. Leveraging Change Intents for Characterizing and Identifying Large-Review-Effort Changes. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering, PROMISE 2019, Recife, Brazil, September 18, 2019, Leandro L. Minku, Foutse Khomh, and Jean Petric (Eds.). ACM, 46–55.
  243. BLIMP Tracer: Integrating Build Impact Analysis with Code Review. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2018, Madrid, Spain, September 23-29, 2018. IEEE Computer Society, 685–694.
  244. How Does Code Reviewing Feedback Evolve?: A Longitudinal Study at Dell EMC. In 44th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, ICSE (SEIP) 2022, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, May 22-24, 2022. IEEE, 151–160.
  245. Effects of Adopting Code Review Bots on Pull Requests to OSS Projects. In IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2020, Adelaide, Australia, September 28 - October 2, 2020. IEEE, 1–11.
  246. What to Expect from Code Review Bots on GitHub?: A Survey with OSS Maintainers. In 34th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering, SBES 2020, Natal, Brazil, October 19-23, 2020, Everton Cavalcante, Francisco Dantas, and Thaís Batista (Eds.). ACM, 457–462.
  247. Quality gatekeepers: investigating the effects of code review bots on pull request activities. Empir. Softw. Eng. 27, 5 (2022), 108.
  248. Comparing the Defect Reduction Benefits of Code Inspection and Test-Driven Development. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 38, 3 (2012), 547–560.
  249. Who should review this change?: Putting text and file location analyses together for more accurate recommendations. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2015, Bremen, Germany, September 29 - October 1, 2015, Rainer Koschke, Jens Krinke, and Martin P. Robillard (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 261–270.
  250. A hybrid approach to code reviewer recommendation with collaborative filtering. In 2017 6th International Workshop on Software Mining (SoftwareMining). IEEE, 24–31.
  251. A Survey on Source Code Review Using Machine Learning. In 2018 3rd International Conference on Information Systems Engineering (ICISE). 56–60.
  252. Clustering Commits for Understanding the Intents of Implementation. In 30th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, Victoria, BC, Canada, September 29 - October 3, 2014. IEEE Computer Society, 406–410. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME.2014.63
  253. EvaCRC: Evaluating Code Review Comments. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA, December 3-9, 2023, Satish Chandra, Kelly Blincoe, and Paolo Tonella (Eds.). ACM, 275–287.
  254. Predictive Models in Software Engineering: Challenges and Opportunities. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 31, 3 (2022), 56:1–56:72.
  255. A Survey on Deep Learning for Software Engineering. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 10s (2022), 206:1–206:73.
  256. Automatic Code Review by Learning the Structure Information of Code Graph. Sensors 23, 5 (2023), 2551.
  257. Security Defect Detection via Code Review: A Study of the OpenStack and Qt Communities. In ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, October 26-27, 2023. IEEE, 1–12.
  258. Reviewer recommendation for pull-requests in GitHub: What can we learn from code review and bug assignment? Inf. Softw. Technol. 74 (2016), 204–218.
  259. Automatically Recommending Peer Reviewers in Modern Code Review. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 42, 6 (2016), 530–543.
  260. Using Large-scale Heterogeneous Graph Representation Learning for Code Review Recommendations at Microsoft. In 45th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, SEIP@ICSE 2023, Melbourne, Australia, May 14-20, 2023. IEEE, 162–172.
  261. Interactive Code Review for Systematic Changes. In 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2015, Florence, Italy, May 16-24, 2015, Volume 1, Antonia Bertolino, Gerardo Canfora, and Sebastian G. Elbaum (Eds.). IEEE Computer Society, 111–122.
  262. Improving the pull requests review process using learning-to-rank algorithms. Empir. Softw. Eng. 24, 4 (2019), 2140–2170.
  263. Generation-based Code Review Automation: How Far Are We? CoRR abs/2303.07221 (2023).
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com