Streamlined Action Plan Code Review Process Ken Kopatz Software Process Improvement Network (SPIN) Meeting 30 June 2000

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

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

Desired Results (Change) n Implement Peer Reviews of code modifications/additions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deliverables

Actions

Actions (ctnd)