Skip to content
Free planNo credit card requiredStart writing
AI for Research home
AI for Research home
Dashboard
Sign inGet started

Search 250 million research papers

Read the abstract, see who wrote it and who cites it, and get the citation in APA, MLA, Chicago or Harvard.

About 10,000 papers for “Code review”

Code Review

DIME Analytics · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2020

Cited by 0

Code Review

Jerrel Blankenship, Matthew Bussa, Scott Millett · Apress eBooks · 2011

This chapter acts as a code review for the work achieved in the case study project. We recommend that you download the complete application from www.apress.com as you read through the review.KeywordsAcceptance TestInfrastructure ProjectCode SnippetCode ReviewCore TestThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Cited by 4

Code Review

Ted Neward, Scott T. McAllister, David Neal et al. · Apress eBooks · 2026

Topics: Code, Writing

Cited by 0

Secure code review : supporting developers in secure code review

Braz Brasileiro Barbosa, Larissa Nadja · Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) · 2023

ZORA (Zurich Open Repository and Archive) provides open and worldwide access to the research and scholarly output of the University of Zurich, Switzerland. A focus is on qualified scientific publications. ZORA is operated by the University Library together with the Central IT of the University of Zurich.

Cited by 0Open access

Code Review Community

Murray, Hollydawn, Ainsworth, Rachael, Baker, Dannon et al. · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020

Code review for research software is the process by which peers evaluate each other's source code. This involves checking that the code does what it claims and is written in a way that can easily be read, maintained, and built upon. Code review is an important tool for ensuring that software is high-quality and reusable, and should be a widely-adopted "best practice". The Code Review Community Working Group (CRC) aims to build consensus and awareness around good practice in code review. The CRC is a collaboration between research software engineers, funders, society representatives, academic publishers, and researchers. The CRC consists of 5 task forces that will begin work in 2021: Diversity, equity, and inclusion Code review during development Code review at the time of publication Recommendations for stakeholders Training and education Have we piqued your interest? The CRC is keen to have you on-board; you're encouraged to participate in any of the task forces. Join us via email (hollydawn.murray@gmail.com). Equally, don't hesitate to get in touch if you have an idea for collaboration.

Cited by 0Open access

Review Code 066

George Lepouras, Costas Vassilakis, George R. S. Weir · 2008

Cited by 0

Code Review Community

Murray, Hollydawn, Ainsworth, Rachael, Baker, Dannon et al. · Figshare · 2020

Code review for research software is the process by which peers evaluate each other's source code. This involves checking that the code does what it claims and is written in a way that can easily be read, maintained, and built upon. Code review is an important tool for ensuring that software is high-quality and reusable, and should be a widely-adopted "best practice". The Code Review Community Working Group (CRC) aims to build consensus and awareness around good practice in code review. The CRC is a collaboration between research software engineers, funders, society representatives, academic publishers, and researchers. The CRC consists of 5 task forces that will begin work in 2021: Diversity, equity, and inclusion Code review during development Code review at the time of publication Recommendations for stakeholders Training and education Have we piqued your interest? The CRC is keen to have you on-board; you're encouraged to participate in any of the task forces. Join us via email (hollydawn.murray@gmail.com). Equally, don't hesitate to get in touch if you have an idea for collaboration.

Cited by 0Open access

Code review quality

Oleksii Kononenko, Olga Baysal, Michael W. Godfrey · 2016

In a large, long-lived project, an effective code review process is key to ensuring the long-term quality of the code base. In this work, we study code review practices of a large, open source project, and we investigate how the developers themselves perceive code review quality. We present a qualitative study that summarizes the results from a survey of 88 Mozilla core developers. The results provide developer insights into how they define review quality, what factors contribute to how they evaluate submitted code, and what challenges they face when performing review tasks. We found that the review quality is primarily associated with the thoroughness of the feedback, the reviewer's familiarity with the code, and the perceived quality of the code itself. Also, we found that while different factors are perceived to contribute to the review quality, reviewers often find it difficult to keep their technical skills up-to-date, manage personal priorities, and mitigate context switching.

Cited by 175

Effective Code Review

Matthews, Dougal · TIB KMO / FLOWWORKS GmbH · 2016

Dougal Matthews - Effective Code Review Developers usually state that finding defects is the primary motivation for doing code reviews. However, research has shown that the main benefits of code reviews are; knowledge transfer, team awareness and finding alternative solutions. Code reviews when done well are more than just finding defects; it should be a discussion and conversation with other developers about finding the best solutions. We will talk about re-framing code review to encourage open discussions. ----- This talk is for everyone that is already involved in regular code review and those hoping to start. I will talk through the code review process with the aim of making it a better and more useful experience for both the authors and the reviewers. The talk will follow the following rough outline: - Introduction - Why do code reviews - What are we aiming to get out of it - Submitting code for review - How can you help reviewers? - What should you avoid doing? - Removing ownership of the code - Reviewing code - How should you give feedback? - What should you look for? - How can you encourage people to review more? - How to avoid and remove bike-shedding - Code review tools and how they impact on the process. - Wrap up and conclusion

Cited by 0Open access

Code Review Defects

Mäntylä Mika · Figshare · 2013

This document contains further details of the code review defects presented in [1]. Description of each defect type is given as well as notes describing the most typical cases. [1] Mäntylä, M. V. and Lassenius, C. "What Types of Defects Are Really Discovered in Code Reviews?" IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 35, no 3, May/June 2009, pp. 430-448, Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2008.71 http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2009/isbn9789512298570/article5.pdf

Cited by 0Open access

Code Review Evolution

Sigrid Eldh · IEEE Software · 2024

From Fagan Inspections to cleanroom practices, agile code reviews, mob programming, and failing fast. This editorial provides a personal reflection of how the practice of code reviews has changed over the decades.

Cited by 1

REVIEW: Code Orange

Ginger Nelms · Georgia Library Quarterly · 2008

Review of the young adult novel "Code Orange," by Caroline B. Cooney.

Cited by 0Open access

Code Review DAO

Wulf A. Kaal · SSRN Electronic Journal · 2024

Cited by 0Open access

Code Orange (review)

Deborah Stevenson · Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books./Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books · 2005

Reviewed by: Code Orange Deborah Stevenson Cooney, Caroline B. Code Orange. Delacorte, 2005 [192p] Library ed. ISBN 0-385-90277-8$17.99 Trade ed. ISBN 0-385-73259-7$15.95 Reviewed from galleys R Gr. 6-10 Mitty is a nice guy but an indifferent scholar at his New York private school, and to him advanced biology is merely the place where he connects with the lovely Olivia. When each student is required to research an infectious disease, his last-minute planning leads him to some old medical books, in which he finds an envelope full of scabs from a 1902 smallpox epidemic. Thinking the scabs will make a nice gruesome presentation feature, he opts to research smallpox; as he researches, he realizes the power of the disease that may still lie in those scabs and begins to grasp that in handling them he could have signed his death warrant—and much of the population's ("The city would go through hell, all because Mitty Blake had done his homework for a change"). In an understandable but dangerous move, he tries to acquire up-to-date information from web boards and subsequently finds himself a victim of terrorist kidnappers who wish to use the virus that might be growing within Mitty as a weapon. Cooney demands considerable athleticism of readers' credulity (the vague terrorist entities hit a particularly cheesy note), but she manages to keep the suspense level high anyway as Mitty counts away the days of the incubation period, secretly wondering if his report subject is brewing inside him. [End Page 79] Mitty's growing relationship with Olivia adds appeal, but the real interest lies in his ethical and pragmatic quandary: if it's too late for him to get cured himself, how can he protect others from the disease, and is suicide the only possibility? The epidemiological information laced through the book comes in manageable chunks, and it's chosen for maximum impact, making it an atmosphere enhancer rather than a plot slower. With its unassuming protagonist unwittingly stumbling into major crime and his own heroism, this is kind of a Dick Francis junior, and youngsters looking for swift pace, high stakes, and an everyguy at the center of it all will find this infectious. Copyright © 2005 The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Cited by 0

Modern code review

Caitlin Sadowski, Emma Söderberg, Luke Church et al. · 2018

Employing lightweight, tool-based code review of code changes (aka modern code review) has become the norm for a wide variety of open-source and industrial systems. In this paper, we make an exploratory investigation of modern code review at Google. Google introduced code review early on and evolved it over the years; our study sheds light on why Google introduced this practice and analyzes its current status, after the process has been refined through decades of code changes and millions of code reviews. By means of 12 interviews, a survey with 44 respondents, and the analysis of review logs for 9 million reviewed changes, we investigate motivations behind code review at Google, current practices, and developers' satisfaction and challenges.

Cited by 255Open access

Code Review Defects

Mika Mäntylä · Figshare · 2013

This document contains further details of the code review defects presented in [1]. Description of each defect type is given as well as notes describing the most typical cases. [1] Mäntylä, M. V. and Lassenius, C. "What Types of Defects Are Really Discovered in Code Reviews?" IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 35, no 3, May/June 2009, pp. 430-448, Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2008.71 http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2009/isbn9789512298570/article5.pdf

Cited by 0Open access

Secure Code Recommendation Based on Code Review Result Using OWASP Code Review Guide

Venia Noella Nanisura Damanik, Septia Ulfa Sunaringtyas · 2020

Sistem Informasi Akademik dan Pengasuhan (SIAP) is an application web that facilitates the academic community in accessing information about academics and student care. However, in its development, if the code system is poorly written, a web application might have vulnerabilities. This study aims to determine the vulnerabilities found in SIAP using OWASP guide and how to fix these vulnerabilities. OWASP is the best choice because it can be obtained free of charge and freely on the internet and periodically up to date. Before vulnerability testing, analysis about security level of SIAP is done using OWASP ASVS. Then, OWASP Testing Guide is used for vulnerability testing. In the tests conducted, it was found that SIAP is vulnerable to injection, broken authentication, and broken access control. Injection is one of the vulnerabilities that has the highest risk value. After testing, a code review using OWASP Code Review Guide is performed to find the location of the vulnerability in the source code. For the last, a secure code recommendation will be given that can overcome the vulnerabilities found from the used guidelines.

Cited by 12