Streamlined Action Plan Code Review Process

Document Sample
Streamlined Action Plan Code Review Process Powered By Docstoc
					Streamlined
Action Plan
Code Review
Process
   Ken Kopatz
   Software Process Improvement
   Network (SPIN) Meeting
   30 June 2000
Overall Objective
   Bugs are being introduced by
    overlooking of consequences of
    minor code changes.
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
Desired Results
(Change)
   Implement Peer Reviews of code
    modifications/additions
Desired Results (Done)
   All code is reviewed before being
    checked into CM for the next
    release
             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
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
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
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
Change Factors (ctnd)
   Concern: Personal criticism
     Coding  standards will establish an
      objective criteria for review
     Current spec reviews are not
      personal
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
Change Factors (ctnd)
   Concern: Creativity will be stifled
     Standards   will provide the
      framework for creativity
     Creativity will be in the problem
      solving
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
        Deliverables
        Item       Team      Feedback
                              Sources
Coding Standard     A     Developers
                          SW Managers
Review Checklist    A     Developers
                          SW Managers
Standard Code       B     Developers
Review Meeting            SW Managers
Agenda
        Actions
         Action           Who   Date
Prepare Coding            A
Standard
Review Coding Standard     B
Publish Coding Standard   C
Prepare Checklist         A
Review Checklist           B
Publish Checklist         C
        Actions (ctnd)
         Action            Who   Date

Prepare Standard Meeting    A
Agenda
Review Standard Meeting     B
Agenda
Publish Standard Meeting    C
Agenda
Schedule Review Meeting     A

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:13
posted:4/10/2012
language:English
pages:16