Downloaded 13 times
More Related Content
Similar to Agile Code Reviews for Better Software—Sooner
Agile Code Reviews for Better Software—Sooner
- 1. W10 Concurrent Class 10/2/2013 1:45:00PM "Agile Code Reviews for Better Software—Sooner" Presented by: Mark Hammer SmartBear Software Brought to you by: 340 Corporate Way, Suite 300, Orange Park, FL 32073 888-268-8770 ∙ 904-278-0524 ∙ sqeinfo@sqe.com ∙ www.sqe.com
- 2. Mark Hammer SmartBear Software Seniorproduct director at SmartBear Software Mark Hammer speaks and writes about the software development process with a special emphasis on code review. Mark has more than twenty years of experience in software product management, previously at global-education leader Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. He has a strong track record in developing customer-focused business solutions in both business-to-business and business-to-consumer markets. Mark was VP of marketing for CompassLearning, an educational software developer.
- 3. 9/20/2013 Want Higher QualitySoftware from Your Agile Team? Peer Review Works Mark Hammer 1 2 1
- 4.
- 5. 9/20/2013 Product Mgmt Development QA User stories Code TestPlans 5 Professional Writers Have Editors 6 3
- 6.
- 7. 9/20/2013 Measure Industry Average High Performance Teams Net Promoter Score 20% >70% % defects of total injected found by customer 15% < 2% % effort spent in finding and fixing defects 50% < 10% % effort for post-release support 30% < 5% Unit test code coverage Varies > 80% Post release defect density 7.5 defects/KLOC < 0.5 defects/KLOC 9 Measure Industry Average High Performance Teams Net Promoter Score 20% > 70% % defects of total injected found by customer 15% < 2% % effort spent in finding and fixing defects 50% < 10% % effort for post-release support 30% < 5% Unit test code coverage Varies > 80% Post release defect density 7.5 defects/KLOC < 0.5 defects/KLOC Bugs found in development are 8-12X less expensive to fix than those found in QA phase And 30-100X less expensive than bugs that reach customers 10 5
- 8. 9/20/2013 The Curious Caseof Missing Code Reviews 11 Requirements Discussion Design Review Architecture Review 12 6
- 9.
- 10. 9/20/2013 If You NeedMore Convincing Geographically-distributed teams (main vs. offshore teams, apprentice – mentor) CMMI – code review is mandated FDA – code review is mandated Embedded systems – very high cost of change PCI – code review is mandated Agile teams – fast, convenient way to collaborate, provides less time-intensive “pair programming” opportunity 15 Code Review Options Over-the-Shoulder Email Pair Programming Formal Inspection Meetings?! Tool 16 8
- 11.
- 12. 9/20/2013 Email 19 Email Easy / Free NoInterruption / Remote Conversation Tracking Info. Hard to Retrieve No End? 20 10
- 13. 9/20/2013 Pair Programming 21 Pair Programming NoTools or Workflow Deep Thought Big Time Commitment No Info. Recorded Too Close 22 11
- 14. 9/20/2013 Why Don’t MoreTeams Do It? • It’s hard to do, with no clear perceived benefits – Expensive, tedious and time consuming to do it manually – Difficult to track threads of communication – Code review isn’t integrated with source code management (SCM) tool – Hard to collaborate with remote members 23 Hapless Developer Reviewers Version Control 24 12
- 15. 9/20/2013 Largest Peer CodeReview Study Ever • • • • • • Objectives: – lightweight vs. formal inspections – What constitutes an effective review? 10-month case study at Cisco Cisco MeetingPlace product, teleconferencing solution 3.2 million lines of code 2500 reviews 50 developers 25 Recommendations (Best Practices) LOC under review < 200, Not to exceed 400 Inspection rate < 300 LOC/hour Author preparation with annotations - Self review checklist Total review time < 60 min. Not to exceed 90 26 13
- 16. 9/20/2013 Product Mgmt User stories QA Code TestPlans 27 Product Mgmt Development QA Review Requirements Architecture Code Test Plans 28 14
- 17. 9/20/2013 Case Study • 2011:70 floating licenses: ~350 developers • 2013: 130 floating licenses: ~650 team members • User stories are shared in Word format with entire team • Design documents are shared in Powerpoint with entire team • Code is shared with entire team • Test cases are shared in Excel format with entire team 29 Benefits of Cross-Functional Peer Review • Every member of the extended development team knows what’s happening • Problems with user stories, code, and test plans are found faster • It forces developers to write readable code (code that can be read without explanation!) • Optimization methods/tricks/productive programs spread faster • Programmer as a specialist "evolve" faster • Teams can iterate from story to code to test plan • It's fun 30 15
- 18. 9/20/2013 The simple factof knowing your work will be reviewed by others means you’ll do it better. 31 16