Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Perl Monk, Perl Meditation

Re: Re: Formal code review specifications and reporting format

by Nuke (Scribe)
on May 16, 2002 at 20:24 UTC ( #167103=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Formal code review specifications and reporting format
in thread Formal code review specifications and reporting format

  Those are all good and very valid points. What I'm proposing here is that we create a generic template that could be used both as a checklist and a submission format when the review is complete. As I mentioned, the template would be a starting point, and could/should be modified as needed. Those who are new to code reviews would have a great checklist to get them started, and those who are experienced would have a common format to start with that could be modified to suit the code being reviewed.

  A common submission format would also allow the creation of parsing routines to do all manner of interesting things with the contents of the review.

  As long as folks understand that this is just a starting point, and they keep to the format of the review, I think we could end up with a very flexible and robust system for accomplishing this. I may disagree with you on what needs to be reviewed, but it's moot if we can both review code in whatever way we see fit.

  If we can get an agreement to this, perhaps we could move on to the next stage and talk about the implimentation of the above. (Do we create scripts to help us do this, or just a text template? Maybe a script that spits out a text template based on initial input from the reviewer? :) )


  • Comment on Re: Re: Formal code review specifications and reporting format

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://167103]
[Lady_Aleena]: I might have to go with options instead of a straight list.
[Discipulus]: if more than 3 go for named variables LA
[Lady_Aleena]: Discipulus, it is at 2 now, but with what I am thinking about, it could go to 3. However, only 1 is needed. The second and third are optional.
[shmem]: straight list or named parameters - that depends on whether (and how many) optional arguments you have
[Discipulus]: if so a plain list is ok, imho
[Lady_Aleena]: shmem, I already have the plugin installed, just not active.
[shmem]: if you have 1 optional argument, place that at the end of the list. If you have more, go for named parameters.
[Lady_Aleena]: 1 manditory, 2 optional.
[Discipulus]: my ($need,$opta,$optb ) = @_; .. if $opta..
[shmem]: all else leads to trouble, even if the third argument depends on the existence of the second. That may become brittle.

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (12)
As of 2017-04-27 12:19 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    I'm a fool:

    Results (506 votes). Check out past polls.