Skip to main content

Prediction Method of Code Review Time Based on Hidden Markov Model

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Web Information Systems and Applications (WISA 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12432))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Pull-Request (PR) is the primary method for developers to contribute code in GitHub. Code review can effectively ensure the quality of the code to be merged. The time of code review will affect the development progress of the entire project. Some researchers predict the duration of the review based on the initial attributes of PR as input attributes for building their prediction model. However, these methods ignore the temporal nature of these activities. In this paper, we propose a new method that uses the hidden Markov model (HMM) and the time series of developer activities. By considering the chronological sequence of developer activities, critical activities in PR are extracted to form a key activity sequence, by which HMM is used. To classify sequences, we collected the historical data of 5 projects from GitHub and conducted experiments. The results show that this method can effectively identify and predict PR’s duration to be reviewed at an early stage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Liu, Z., Xia, X., Treude, C., Lo, D., Li, S.: Automatic generation of pull request descriptions. In: 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 176–188. IEEE (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mirhosseini, S., Parnin, C.: Can automated pull requests encourage software developers to upgrade out-of-date dependencies? In: 2017 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pp. 84–94. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ram, A., Sawant, A.A., Castelluccio, M., Bacchelli, A.: What makes a code change easier to review: an empirical investigation on code change reviewability. In: Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 201–212. IEEE (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Layman, L., Nagappan, N., Guckenheimer, S., Beehler, J., Begel, A.: Mining software effort data: preliminary analysis of visual studio team system data. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 43–46. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Liu, X., et al.: Mining core contributors in open-source projects. In: Ni, W., Wang, X., Song, W., Li, Y. (eds.) WISA 2019. LNCS, vol. 11817, pp. 690–703. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30952-7_70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Yu, Y., Wang, H., Yin, G., Wang, T.: Reviewer recommendation for pull-requests in GitHub: What can we learn from code review and bug assignment? Information and Software Technology, pp. 204–218. IEEE (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Yu, Y., Wang, H., Yin, G., Ling, C.X.: Who should review this pull-request: Reviewer recommendation to expedite crowd collaboration. In: 2014 21st Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, pp. 335–342. IEEE (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rahman, M.M., Roy, C.K., Collins, J.A.: Correct: code reviewer recommendation in github based on cross-project and technology experience. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion, pp. 222–231. IEEE (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Yang, C., Zhang, X., Zeng, L., Fan, Q., Yin, G., Wang, H.: An empirical study of reviewer recommendation in pull-based development model. In: Proceedings of the 9th Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang, X., et al.: DevRec: a developer recommendation system for open source repositories. In: Botterweck, G., Werner, C. (eds.) ICSR 2017. LNCS, vol. 10221, pp. 3–11. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56856-0_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Zanjani, M.B., Kagdi, H., Bird, C.: Automatically recommending peer reviewers in modern code review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 42(6), 530–543 (2015). IEEE

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ziyuan Wang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Zhang, W., Pan, Z., Wang, Z. (2020). Prediction Method of Code Review Time Based on Hidden Markov Model. In: Wang, G., Lin, X., Hendler, J., Song, W., Xu, Z., Liu, G. (eds) Web Information Systems and Applications. WISA 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12432. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60029-7_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60029-7_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60028-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60029-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics