Emre Sülün
ABSTRACT
During the lifecycle of a software project, software artifacts constantly change. A change should be peer-reviewed to ensure the software quality. To maximize the benefit of review, the reviewer(s) should be chosen appropriately. However, choosing the right reviewer(s) might not be trivial especially in large projects. Researchers developed different methods to recommend reviewers. In this study, we introduce a novel approach for reviewer recommendation problem. Our approach utilizes the traceability graph of a software project and assigns a know-about score to each developer, then recommends the developers who have the maximum know-about score for an artifact. We tested our approach on an open source project and achieved top-3 recall of 0.85 with an MRR (mean reciprocal ranking) of 0.73.
- Gaeul Jeong, Sunghun Kim, and Thomas Zimmermann. 2009. Improving code review by predicting reviewers and acceptance of patches. Research on Software (2009). http://rosaec.snu.ac.kr/publish/2009/techmemo/ROSAEC-2009-006.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Jing Jiang, Jia Huan He, and Xue Yuan Chen. 2015. CoreDevRec: Automatic Core Member Recommendation for Contribution Evaluation. Journal of Computer Science and Technology 30, 5 (2015), 998–1016.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laura MacLeod, Michaela Greiler, Margaret Anne Storey, Christian Bird, and Jacek Czerwonka. 2018. Code Reviewing in the Trenches: Challenges and Best Practices. IEEE Software (2018).Google Scholar
- Ali Ouni, Raula Gaikovina Kula, and Katsuro Inoue. 2017. Search-based peer reviewers recommendation in modern code review. Proceedings - 2016 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, ICSME 2016 (2017), 367–377.Google Scholar
- Caitlin Sadowski, Emma Söderberg, Luke Church, Michal Sipko, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018. Modern code review. Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering Software Engineering in Practice - ICSE-SEIP ’18 (2018), 181–190. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patanamon Thongtanunam, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Raula Gaikovina Kula, Norihiro Yoshida, Hajimu Iida, and Ken Ichi Matsumoto. 2015. Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for Modern Code Review. 2015 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, SANER 2015 - Proceedings (2015), 141–150.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Suggesting reviewers of software artifacts using traceability graphs
Recommendations
Workload-aware reviewer recommendation using a multi-objective search-based approach
PROMISE 2020: Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software EngineeringReviewer recommendation approaches have been proposed to provide automated support in finding suitable reviewers to review a given patch. However, they mainly focused on reviewer experience, and did not take into account the review workload, which is ...
Reviewer Recommendation using Software Artifact Traceability Graphs
PROMISE'19: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software EngineeringVarious types of artifacts (requirements, source code, test cases, documents, etc.) are produced throughout the lifecycle of a software. These artifacts are often related with each other via traceability links that are stored in modern application ...
Sixth international workshop on traceability in emerging forms of software engineering (TEFSE 2011)
ICSE '11: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software EngineeringThe Sixth International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging Forms of Software Engineering (TEFSE 2011) will bring together researchers and practitioners to examine the challenges of recovering and maintaining traceability for the myriad forms of ...
Comments