Code Review: Best Practices For Code Review

Code review is known as a software development phase. It is a process that the authors of the code, peer reviewers, and QA testers get together to review the laws.

By finding and correcting errors at this phase is relatively inexpensive. Furthermore, this process reduces the additional expensive method of handling, locating, and fixing bugs during later stages of development or even after programs distributed to users.
Below are some best practices for code review:

1. Inspection Rates 500 Loc Per Hour

It can be tempting for developers to split through studies and assume that someone else will catch the errors that they didn’t find. However, research from SmartBear suggested that there will be a significant drop in defect density at rates faster than 500 LOC per hour.

Hence, code reviews in a reasonable amount or at a slower pace for a limited amount of time results in the most efficient code review.

2. Review Less Than 400 Lines Of Code

A study of a Cisco Systems revealed that developers should review no more than 200 to 400 lines of code of LOC at a time.

Moreover, a review of 200-400 lines of codes within 60 to 90 minutes gives up 70-90% defect detection. Hence, if ten defects existed in the system, a properly conducted review would find between seven and nine of them.

3. Do Not Review For More Than One Hour At A Timer

When developers engage in any activity requiring intense effort over a period, performance starts dropping off after about an hour.

Studies show that taking breaks from a task over a period can significantly improve quality of work.

4. Set Goals

Before implementing a process, teams must decide how they will measure the effectiveness of peer review and name a few tangible goals. The best of accomplishing it is by using smart criteria that starts with external metrics.

For example, “reduce support calls by 15%,” or “cut the percentage of defects injected by development in half.” This information should give developers a quantifiable picture of how the code is developing.

Additionally, only automated or strictly controlled processes can provide repeatable metrics. A metrics-driven code review tool gathers data automatically so that the information is accurate and without human bias.

5. Creators Must Explain Source Code before The Review

Creators should explain code before the review occurs. The reason is that annotations guide the reviewer through the changes, showing which files to look at first and defending the rationale behind each code modification.

Annotations should be directed at other reviewers to ease the process and provide more depth in context. As an added benefit, the author will often find additional errors before the peer review even begins. More bugs found before peer review will yield in lower defect density because fewer bugs exist overall.

6. Use checklists

It´s very likely that each person on the team makes the same mistakes again and again. Lapses in the process are the most laborious defects to find due to it’s difficult to review something that isn´t there.

Checklists are the most efficient way to eliminate frequently made errors and to combat the challenges of lapse finding.

If you are looking for a QA tool that:

Record your browser sessions and mark your bugs.

Share the recording with your teammate with one click.

Recreate your bugs and get Mouse clicks, Scrolls, inputs, Animations, JS errors, Exceptions, and every user interaction.

Try our product here at https://www.qa-recorder.com/