Code Inspections CSSE 376, Software Quality Assurance Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology March 22, 2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Collaborative Code Construction: Code Reviews and Pair Programming CPSC 315 – Programming Studio Spring 2009.
Advertisements

How to Present your Work
Intro to CIT 594
Damian Gordon.  Static Testing is the testing of a component or system at a specification or implementation level without execution of the software.
CSE101 Lab 3 Lecture Productive Team Work and Meeting CSE 101 Yinong Chen 1.
Project Perfect Pty Ltd Project Administrator Overview of Software.
 Every stage from phase DESIGN in Software Development Process will have “design document” especially in analysis and design phases.  “Design document”
OFSTED School Inspection 2009_KDR 22 May OFSTED School Inspection 2009.
Code Inspections CS 414 – Software Engineering I Donald J. Bagert Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology January 23, 2003.
1 Usability Testing Roles CSSE 376 Software Quality Assurance Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology April 23, 2006.
Effective Meetings March 1, 2011 University Libraries.
Personal Software Process Overview CIS 376 Bruce R. Maxim UM-Dearborn.
1 Software Inspections and Walkthroughs Author: A. Frank Ackerman Presented by Cynthia Johnson EEL6883.
Design Reviews Peer Reviews. Agenda Peer Reviews Participants of Peer Review Preparation for a Peer Review Session The Peer Review Session Post-peer Review.
KENDA ALBERTSON Formal Peer Review Processes for Software and Documents.
1 Software Reviews - FTR SWENET Module QUA2. Formal Technical Review u Features – Formal v Scheduled event v Defined procedure v Reported result – Technical.
Software Inspections and Walkthroughs By. Adnan khan.
Software Quality Assurance Lecture #4 By: Faraz Ahmed.
Galin, SQA from theory to implementation © Pearson Education Limited 2004 Review objectives Formal design reviews (FDRs) Participants Preparations The.
S oftware Q uality A ssurance Part One Reviews and Inspections.
Object-Oriented Software Engineering Practical Software Development using UML and Java Chapter 10: Testing and Inspecting to Ensure High Quality Part 4:
Lecture 16 Formal Technical Reviews (FTRs) (also know as inspections) FOR0383 Software Quality Assurance 9/19/20151Dr Andy Brooks Don´t review in your.
Software Inspection A basic tool for defect removal A basic tool for defect removal Urgent need for QA and removal can be supported by inspection Urgent.
Formal and Informal Peer Reviews
Phil Cronin Anne Hill Allen Schones CIS841 Summer on Campus 1998 IN-PROCESS INSPECTIONS FOR OBJECT ORIENTED DESIGNS.
© 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley 1 Product Design Finalization; Inspections.
Fun, fun, fun. But first … the code review Preparation Process.
Formal Technical Reviews Matt Graham 18 November 2004 EECS 814 University of Kansas.
... there is no particular reason why your friend and colleague cannot also be your sternest critic. --Jerry Weinberg --Jerry Weinberg.
CHAPTER 9 INSPECTIONS AS AN UP-FRONT QUALITY TECHNIQUE
University of Palestine software engineering department Testing of Software Systems Program Inspections, Walkthroughs, and Reviews instructor: Tasneem.
Software Testing and Maintenance 1 Code Review  Introduction  How to Conduct Code Review  Practical Tips  Tool Support  Summary.
©2003 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Longman Publishers. Study Skills Topic 4 Communication Skills PowerPoint by JoAnn Yaworski.
Applied Software Project Management Andrew Stellman & Jennifer Greene Applied Software Project Management Applied Software.
Code review. informal formal ad hoc reviewpair programmingwalk throughinspection/review.
T Project Review (Template for PI and I1 phases) Group name [PI|I1] Phase
Inspection and Review The main objective of an Inspection or a Review is to Detect Defects. (Today -there may be some other goals or broader definition.
Meeting Management USAMPS Captain’s Career Course.
Inspection and Review The main objective of an Inspection or a Review is to detect defects. This activity and procedure was first formalized by Mike Fagan.
© Michael Crosby and Charles Sacker, 2001 Systematic Software Reviews Software reviews are a “quality improvement process for written material”.
1 540f07reviews9sep25 Pert and Reviews Reviews S&G Chapter 5.
Advances In Software Inspection
FEU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CONDUCTING BUSINESS MEETINGS (PROCEDURES AND ETIQUETTES) De Guzman, Erickson P. ENSP2 Prof. Xavier Aquino Velasco Associate/Lecturer.
Reviews Chapter 5 Applied Software Project Management, Stellman & Greene See also:
Management of Software Project CSM Review By:Nafas.
Peer Review Presented by : Basker George. Peer ( 同等的人 ) Review( 回顾 ) During the development of software, defects are inevitably ( 不可避免 ) injected. Defect.
Peer Review Overview Meeting [Date] [Product name]
More SQA Reviews and Inspections. Types of Evaluations  Verification Unit Test, Integration Test, Usability Test, etc  Formal Reviews  aka "formal.
CSC 205 Programming II Lecture 1 PSP. The Importance of High-Quality Work Three aspects to doing an effective software engineering job producing quality.
SQA COMPONENTS IN THE PROJECT LIFE CYCLE C HAPTER 8 Dr. Ahmad F. Shubita.
Formal Inspection Scenes
Software Configuration Management (SCM)
SWE 3643_2016_Lesson_3 PSP Data / Review / Inspection from kindergarten to college SWE 3643 Lesson 3 PSP & Review/Inspection.
Peer Reviews 11/21/2018.
February 10, 2015 University Libraries
Inspection and Review The main objective of an Inspection or a Review is to detect defects. (Not for Giving Alternative Solutions) This activity and procedure.
IEPPEC Conference Moderators
COLLABORATIVE CODE CONSTRUCTION: CODE REVIEWS AND PAIR PROGRAMMING
Dr. Rob Hasker SE 3800 Note 9 Reviews.
QA Reviews Lecture # 6.
Collaborative Code Construction: Code Reviews and Pair Programming
Testing and Inspection Present and Future
9-3 Applying for Employment
Code Reviews Assignment Each team should perform a code review
Software Reviews.
Review & Inspection Process
Collaborative Code Construction: Code Reviews and Pair Programming
Role Based Peer Reviews A. Winsor Brown Oct. 2, 2009
Presentation transcript:

Code Inspections CSSE 376, Software Quality Assurance Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology March 22, 2007

2 Outline Inspections in general That is, for any type of artifact Fagan's original work on code inspections Benefits and Costs of Inspections

Inspections in General

4 Inspection Fundamentals Preparation Led by a moderator Recorded results

5 Inspection Roles Moderator schedules the inspection meeting leads the meeting Recorder records results publishes results Reviewer(s) prepares for inspection meeting participates during meeting Producer one of the authors; distributes artifact attends inspection meeting, but does not talk (except to answer questions)

6 Inspection Process 1. Planning 2. Preparation 3. Meeting 4. Reporting results 5. Rework

7 1. Planning Schedule inspection meeting (time and place) [Moderator] Invite Reviewers [Producer] Prepare materials [Producer] Distribute materials to Reviewers [Producer]

8 2. Preparation Reviewers read artifact Reviewers annotate listing with comments Reviewers keep track of time spent in preparation

9 3. Inspection Meeting A square or octagonal table is recommended Moderator runs the meeting Recorder keeps minutes: preparation time of Reviewers comments and commenters Reviewers contribute comments Producer attends, but remains silent unless asked a question

10 Dilbert on Moderating

11 Moderating the Session Don't go too fast -- may miss things Don't go too slow may not cover all of artifact reviewers may lose concentration Keep group on task Record important events Keep session to 1-2 hours in length

12 Wrapping Up Ask for final comments Review action items Recorder: send minutes to Moderator Reviewers: send annotated listings to authors Recorder or Moderator: send reports to participants and to management

13 4. Reporting Results Summary data is sent to management how many people participated when the meeting took place, and for how long how many issues were found (may be categorized) Detailed results are sent to participants all issues with annotations action items

14 5. Rework Authors review comments Artifact is modified by Producers Reviewers are notified of changes Another inspection may be needed, depending on the number and severity of the original comments

Fagan’s Work on Code Inspections

16 Overview of Fagan's Work Proposed use of code inspections Demonstrated evidence that inspections were cost effective 23% improvement in coding efficiency careful to avoid the "Hawthorne effect"

17 Code Inspection Checklist Examples Mistakes improper use of programming language errors in algorithm or declarations Poor style violations of standard coding style confusing or misleading expressions

18 Categorizing Defects Some errors are more serious than others Some errors are more common than others Objective is not perfect classification, but separation of major types

19 Sample Categories Major -- require investigation Minor -- may not need immediate attention Cosmetic -- optional improvements

20

21 How many LOC per inspection? Remember, 1-2 hours is desired length of inspection meeting Generally lines of code per hour is the proper pace Thus, many inspection meetings are likely needed for the entire source code

Benefits and Costs

23 Why Do Inspections Work? Preparation reviewers find things that authors miss Peer pressure forces developers to work harder Formal process forces developers and reviewers to do a thorough job

24 Costs of Inspection Time spent in preparation Time spent in meeting Overhead of scheduling meeting

25 How Could We Improve Inspections? (Some Ideas) Reduce number of reviewers Reduce time spent in meeting Hold meeting asynchronously Hold meeting via the web What are the pros and cons to each of these?