In the KIELER project we are conducting regular code reviews of (possibly) all of our sources. To make things easier, we do software assisted reviews in Crucible.
On this page:
|Table of Contents|
Reviews are scheduled for every thursday. In the weekly KIELER meeting one author and two reviewers are chosen.
The author's job is then to do as follows:
- Choose about four Java classes that are to be reviewed
- Create a Review Task in Jira
- Create a review in Crucible
- Invite the two reviewers to the review
Now it is the reviewers's turn to perform the review:
- Read the source code of the class files in Crucible
- Understand the source code and the class files
- Write a comment if there is something that needs to be improved and mark the comment as defect
- If you want to put more emphasis in your opinion, create a corresponding Jira issue for the defect directly from Crucible
- Write a comment if there is anything that is not understood
The week after, on Thursday, the review meeting takes place. In the Meeting the following exciting things happen
- The moderator welcomes the author and the reviewers to the meeting
- The moderator asks for further general remarks
- The moderator reads all comments aloud
- If there are any questions, reviewers or the author interrupt the moderator and start discussing
- The moderator keeps the discussion brief
- Finally, the moderator asks if any further remarks have arisen during the review
After the Review
After the review it is up to the author to finish any tasks that have been risen
- The author goes through all comments in Crucible and leaves a note about his decision
- The author may schedule a followup meeting which is only held online to review for example auxiliary classes
- The author adds a tag to the reviewed classes to mark them as reviewed according to the proposed rating (see below)
When classes are ready for a design review, they should be marked with the following tag:
@kieler.design proposed <comment>
After the design review has been performed, the same tag can be used to mark the reviewed classes by removing the
proposed modifier and adapting the comment. The comment should contain the date of the design review (yyyy-mm-dd) and the login names of the attendees.
All classes have initial code review rating red. The first code review lifts them to yellow, and the second one to green. The following tag marks classes that are ready for the first code review:
@kieler.rating proposed yellow <comment>
After the code review has been performed, the same tag can be used to mark the reviewed classes by removing the
proposed modifier and adapting the comment. Similarly, the second code review can be marked using the
green modifier. The comment should contain the date of the code review (yyyy-mm-dd), the login names of the attendees, and the ID of the code review in Crucible (such as
Review Overview Page
The complete syntax of the available tags is as follows:
@kieler.design [proposed] yyyy-mm-dd comment Marks a class as design-reviewed or to be design-reviewed. For proposed classes, the comment should mention the login name of the person proposing the class to be reviewed. For reviewed classes, the comment should include the names of the reviewers. @kieler.rating [proposed] <yellow|green> yyyy-mm-dd comment Marks a class as code-reviewed or to be code-reviewed. For proposed classes, the comment should mention the login name of the person proposing the class to be reviewed. For reviewed classes, the comment should include the names of the reviewers as well as the ID of the review in Crucible (for instance "KI-15"). @kieler.ignore comment Marks a class as to be ignored in the code rating statistics. The comment should provide an explanation of why the class is ignored.
To be compatible with past tags, the doclet is actually quite flexible in terms of what it still accepts. However, it is good practice to follow these recommendations.