Streamlined Action Plan Code Review Process

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/addit
  ions

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)