Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
No such thing as a small change
 
PerlMonks  

Re^3: How should I do (and document) effective semi-formal code review?

by Tanktalus (Canon)
on Jun 19, 2008 at 14:12 UTC ( #692921=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^2: How should I do (and document) effective semi-formal code review?
in thread How should I do (and document) effective semi-formal code review?

We use IBM Rational Clearcase/Clearquest (not my choice). The tool for codereview was written on top of that by us. It just queries the current view to see what has been checked in, marks those files as being 'under review', and sends the review. Then the reviewer retrieves that into a temp directory, which marks those files as being retrieved for review, and gets to see all the diffs, as well as the full original and modified code. When done, the tool is invoked yet again to mark the files as passed review, and emails/logs in clearquest the comments, if any. The problem here for me is that these marks are singletons - you can't mark a file more than once. The purpose of the marks is so that a rejected review that results in further changes only needs to review those changes, not the whole thing again, because the tool will see that some files are already reviewed, but if you checkout/checkin again, the new versions of those files don't have the mark and get reviewed again.

Of course, the tool is written in perl. ;-)


Comment on Re^3: How should I do (and document) effective semi-formal code review?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://692921]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-08-02 03:56 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    Who would be the most fun to work for?















    Results (54 votes), past polls