MSE Studio Summer 2000

1
MSE Studio Summer 2000 Formal Review Training
Rev 1.1 5/29/2000 Bob Lindman
2
Outline

• Overview
• Guidelines
• Process

3
Purpose

• To improve the software work product
• To exchange information and lessons learned
  between developers
• Not to evaluate the developer
• The data obtained from reviews will never be used
  for grading or other performance appraisals

4
What are Formal Reviews?

• Formal, efficient, and economical method of
  finding errors in design and code Fagan 76
• A way of using the diversity and power of a
  group of people to
• Point out needed improvements in a product
• Confirm those parts of a product in which
  improvement is either not desired or not needed
• Freedman 90

5
Why Formal Reviews?

• To err is human
• Defect Removal Leverage
• Better code into test means better code out of
  test

6
When Formal Reviews?

• Critical that reviews conducted prior to the next
  logical phase of development process
• Design reviews should occur prior to start of
  coding
• Code reviews should occur prior to start of
  testing

7
Why Formal Reviews Then?

• If testing occurs prior to code review
• Ineffective use of time if review later shows
  that code changes are necessary
• Reluctance to substantially revise code as
  desired due to substantial time already invested
  in testing may patch existing code when
  substantial revisions may be more appropriate
• If testing occurs prior to code review
• Bias exists if reviewers know code has been
  tested may mistakenly believe that no defects
  could exist because it has already been tested

8
What Should Be Reviewed?

• All valuable work products
• Any work product that is an input to a subsequent
  phase/item/cycle
• Any work product that is delivered to the customer

9
Guidelines

• Provide reviewers at least 24 hours notice to
  prepare
• Defer the review if reviewers unprepared
• Two hour maximum for review meetings
• Target for no more than one hour
• Estimate 150 lines of code per hour

10
Guidelines (2)

• Review the product, not its producers
• Issues should be raised and not resolved during
  the meeting
• Technical meetings may be scheduled after the
  review to resolve issues that need further
  discussion
• Possible solutions should not be the main focus
• 2 Minute rule
• Only the moderator, the producer, and the
  reviewers attend the review meeting
• Additional people will hinder the review process

11
Roles

• Producer
• Creates work product
• Acts as scribe during the review meeting
• Corrects defects after the review
• Moderator
• Acts as a code inspector
• Paraphrases work product during the review
• Keeps the meeting flowing
• Reviews disposition after the review
• Code Inspector
• Review code before the review
• Bring up defects during the review
• Time Keeper
• Can be a code inspector or the moderator

12
Review Activities

• Review Preparation
• Conduct the Review
• Review Follow-up

13
Producers Preparation

• Complete the software work product (includes
  self-review)
• Arrange for participation of reviewers (invite
  them), work with your QA person
• Complete and distribute a Review Package (next
  slide)
• Schedules the review (room, time, roles)
• Do not work on the work product after you
  distribute it for review, do something else

14
Review Package

• An review package consists of the following
  items
• Software Review Meeting Notice (when, where, who,
  roles)
• Software work products to be reviewed
• Print with page numbers
• If code, print with line numbers
• Requirements documents
• Design documents (if code review)
• Standards (or their location) the work product
  was developed against

15
Reviewers Prep

• Review the material against the requirements,
  design, and standards
• May require multiple passes
• Plan on about one hour for review prior to the
  meeting (no more than two hours)
• Dont prepare right before the meeting
• Record defects and preparation time
• For each defect, record where (mark the product)
  and if its functional or non-functional
• Ask for clarification on issues while reviewing
  (before the meeting) if you need it
• Dont agree to do reviews you cant prepare for

16
Conduct the Review

• Collect preparation time
• Participants determine re-review criteria
• Material is reviewed
• Review disposition determined

17
Beginning the Review

• Collect preparation time
• If all participants are not prepared, defer the
  review
• Participants determine re-review criteria
• TSP has a formula or
• Use number of functional defects found
• 5 is a reasonable start
• If you dont decide on a hard criteria at the
  beginning, you will never decide to re-review

18
Material is reviewed

• Moderator should paraphrase the material
• Verbalize every line or paragraph (dont skip
  any)
• Reviewers chime in when they have a defect
• Producer should document defects
• Give each defect a number and rating (functional
  or non-functional)
• Record the location of the defect (line number or
  paragraph number, page number, etc)
• Do not problem solve in the meeting Ask questions
  if you dont understand the defect
• Time Keeper should warn if discussion are going
  too long and when close to the end of the meeting
• 2 minute rule

19
Ending the Review

• Software Review Report begun
• The producers notes form the beginning of the
  review report
• Review disposition determined
• Complete
• Complete, pending resolution of defects raised
• Re-review required

20
Review Follow-up

• Producer modifies the work product
• Producer completes the Software Review Report
• Moderator verifies completion of report and
  review is closed
• Moderator should review the documented
  disposition of each defect to ensure it seems
  appropriate

21
Software Review Report

• Created by the producer of the work product
• Reviewed by the moderator for completeness
• Minimum Contents
• Review Preparation time ( total minutes for all
  participants excluding producer)
• Review meeting length (minutes)
• Number of defects found
• Review disposition
• For each defect
• Number
• Functional or non-functional
• Location
• Brief description
• Producers final resolution

22
Feedback

• Are any items still unclear?
• How could this training session have been
  improved?
• Other questions