Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.
Seven Deadly Sins of Software         Reviews                Laurentiu MARGHESCU,                       An IV CTI.
Preview This article describes seven common problems that can undermine the effectiveness of software reviews. Consideri...
Participants Dont Understand     the Review Process Symptoms: Software engineers dont instinctively know how to conduct a...
Reviewers Critique the  Producer, Not the Product Symptoms: Initial attempts to hold reviews sometimes lead to personal a...
Reviews Are Not Planned Symptoms: On many projects, reviews do not appear in the projects work breakdown structure or sch...
Review Meetings Drift Into       Problem-Solving Symptoms: Software developers are creative problem solvers by nature. S...
Reviewers Are Not Prepared Symptoms: Not enough time to study and understand the entire reviewed code. Solutions: Since ...
The Wrong People Participate Symptoms: If the participants in a review do not have appropriate skills and knowledge to fi...
Reviewers Focus on Style, Not         Substance Symptoms: Whenever I see a defect list containing mostly style issues, Im...
Conclusions Review is crucial because it may  reveal some reveal some errors  more or less visible on a real  system. How...
Próxima SlideShare
Cargando en…5
×

Resource2 mps

135 visualizaciones

Publicado el

  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Resource2 mps

  1. 1. Seven Deadly Sins of Software Reviews Laurentiu MARGHESCU, An IV CTI.
  2. 2. Preview This article describes seven common problems that can undermine the effectiveness of software reviews. Considering that effective technical reviews are one of the most powerful software quality practices available, all software groups should become skilled in their
  3. 3. Participants Dont Understand the Review Process Symptoms: Software engineers dont instinctively know how to conduct and contribute to software reviews. Solution: Training is the best way to ensure that your team members share a common understanding of the review process.
  4. 4. Reviewers Critique the Producer, Not the Product Symptoms: Initial attempts to hold reviews sometimes lead to personal assaults on the skills and style of the author. Solution: When helping your team begin reviews, emphasize that the correct battle lines pit the author and his peers against the defects in
  5. 5. Reviews Are Not Planned Symptoms: On many projects, reviews do not appear in the projects work breakdown structure or schedule. Solution: A major contributor to schedule overruns is inadequate planning of the tasks that must be performed.
  6. 6. Review Meetings Drift Into Problem-Solving Symptoms: Software developers are creative problem solvers by nature. Solution: The kind of reviews Im discussing in this article have one primary purpose: to find defects in a software work product.
  7. 7. Reviewers Are Not Prepared Symptoms: Not enough time to study and understand the entire reviewed code. Solutions: Since about 75% of the defects found during inspections are located during individual preparation, the reviews effectiveness is badly hampered by
  8. 8. The Wrong People Participate Symptoms: If the participants in a review do not have appropriate skills and knowledge to find defects, their review contributions are minimal. Solution: Review teams having 3 to 7 participants are most effective.
  9. 9. Reviewers Focus on Style, Not Substance Symptoms: Whenever I see a defect list containing mostly style issues, Im nervous that substantive errors have been overlooked. Solutions: Be flexible and realistic about style.
  10. 10. Conclusions Review is crucial because it may reveal some reveal some errors more or less visible on a real system. However it is treated with low interest. The presented mistakes should be identified and removed to improve the review process.

×