1. © 2010 John Dalbey Ch 9: Reviews Humphrey proposes that personal reviews will result in improved quality. Now that we have a defined process and some real data, we can augment our process with his suggestion and measure it and empirically determine if it makes a difference. This will demonstrate how process optimization works using the PSP.

2. © 2010 John Dalbey Personal versus Team reviews Team reviews: FTR Inspections Walkthroughs Personal reviews “Review” is short for “personal review”. You examine your own work in a structured manner with the intent of finding defects.

3. © 2010 John Dalbey Evidence of Review Effectiveness Intuitive or anecdotal; most of us know that many of our errors are due to sloppiness or rushed work. Many of these errors would have been found had we double checked our work. Anecdote about slow turnaround time and fast compilers as a bad thing. Optimal time = 20 min.

4. © 2010 John Dalbey Evidence of Review Effectiveness - cont. Data show that it is much more efficient to find defects in reviews than in testing in unit test, typically only about 2 to 4 defects are found per hour code reviews typically find about 10 defects per hour experienced reviewers can find 70% or more of the defects in a product unit test rarely exceeds a 50% yield PSP data show that reviews find 2 to 5 times as many defects per hour as unit test

5. © 2010 John Dalbey Defect Removal Comparisons 1997 SEI Study

6. © 2010 John Dalbey Evidence of Review Effectiveness - cont. After unit test, defect removal becomes much more expensive in integration and system test it takes 10 to 40 programmer hours to find and fix each defect inspections typically take less than an hour per defect Some inspection data O’Neil: 80-90% yield at 25 minutes/defect Philips: 15 minutes/defect versus 8 hours in test

7. © 2010 John Dalbey Evidence of Review Effectiveness - cont. The reason to eliminate defects as early as possible is because every review, inspection, compile, and test finds only a fraction of the defects thus, the cleaner the code entering a phase, the cleaner it will be on exit. Early defect removal saves time and money! defects cost more to find and fix later in the development process defects cost much more to find and fix after product release

8. © 2010 John Dalbey Rationale: reviews are direct, testing is indirect p236 Testing produces symptoms Debugging (or defect identification more specifically) is time you spend to get from symptoms to defect. Trivial defects can produce very bizarre symptoms. (Elicit anecdotes). During code reviews we carry a mental construct of the intended solution and it’s easier to spot deviations.

9. © 2010 John Dalbey Why Reviews are Efficient - 1 In Testing you start with a problem then you must find the bug next, you devise a fix finally, you implement and test the fix With reviews and inspections you see the defect then you devise a fix finally, you implement and review the fix

10. © 2010 John Dalbey Why Reviews are Efficient - 2 In Testing, the system produces an unusual result, then you must detect that it was unusual figure out what the test program was doing find where it was in your program figure out what defect could cause such behavior You are searching for the unplanned and unexpected. This can take a lot of time.

11. © 2010 John Dalbey Why Reviews are Efficient - 3 With reviews and inspections you follow your own logic when you find a defect, you know exactly where you are you know what the program should do and did not do you thus know why this is a defect you are therefore in a better position to devise a complete and effective fix

12. © 2010 John Dalbey Motivation for code reviews May seem solitary, boring, slow, laborious. Try it and convince yourself with your own data. If you don’t strive to produce defect-free work, you probably never will. If you have a habit of sloppy work, you will be unable to produce quality work on the “important” project.

13. © 2010 John Dalbey The PSP Review Strategy The PSP objective is to produce the highest possible program quality at every process phase The review strategy to achieve this is to gather data on your reviews study these data decide what works best for you adjust your process accordingly This is a continuous learning process using data on your own work.

14. © 2010 John Dalbey Review Principles 1. Have defined review goals The PSP goal is to find every defect before the first compile or test. 2. Follow a defined review process with entry and exit criteria a review structure guidelines, checklists, and standards 3. Measure (track time and defects) and improve your review process

15. © 2010 John Dalbey Skip Chapter 9.6 and9.7 CSc 409 does not use design reviews.

16. © 2010 John Dalbey Other process improvements Other suggestions you might try on your own: write test cases first hand trace (aka “desk check”) single step through code, see if it matches hand trace document first for readability standards asserts and pre/post conditions peer walkthroughs

17. © 2010 John Dalbey The heart of the review: checklists PSQ code check is not just “double-checking” - it is a formal defined process. Checklists help when the number of items to be checked exceeds our short term memory capacity. Increases probability of covering all items.

18. © 2010 John Dalbey Checklists When performing precise tasks, it is difficult to do more than one thing well at a time. The checklist defines the review steps in the order suggested for performing them. By checking off each item, you are more likely to perform it properly. Establish a personal checklist that is customized to your defect experience.

19. © 2010 John Dalbey Using Checklists Follow the order on the checklist. Do one item at a time. Do each item completely. Check each item when complete. Do them the same way every time. Complete the entire checklist for each unit/module separately.

20. © 2010 John Dalbey Using Checklists (cont.) Do we include coding standards as part of checklist? No, we have an automated style checker. Yes, the style checker doesn't catch all coding standard violations. Consider separating readability standards from semantic ones - indentation, layout, etc, vs if (constant == variable) Consider separate defect category for readability since that affects maintenance

21. © 2010 John Dalbey Using Checklists (cont.) Take frequent breaks. The work is tedious, breaks help you stay alert. Don’t rush (don’t confuse speed with progress) Suggest limit of 200 LOC/hr. Consider your Review Objectives /motivations.

22. © 2010 John Dalbey Code review before or after compile? Which do you think is best? Why? (Pro/Con arguments on pp197-199)

23. © 2010 John Dalbey Building a personal checklist Based on defect log of your actual defects Create a pareto distribution (sorted by frequency) Build a checklist to focus on most prevalent defects first Review periodically add items that you are missing in reviews retain items that you are finding.