|
Will my patch make it? And how fast? Case study on the Linux kernel
|
# CC people,# emails between thread and patch,# people participating,#commiter for the chunk of patch,#review messages,#reviewers,Discussion time,Is commiter name same as CC reviewer,Is patch part of larger patch set?,Linus accept,Number of chuns where commiter name matching,Quarter of release window in which patch is submitted,author accepted,author submissions,bug fix?,chunk_in (accept),chunk_out (reject),churn,comit_sub (accepted patches/subsystem),file,first patch in thread?,first response time,integrate time,mail sent to general mailing list?,message length,missed,response time,reviewing time,right_venue?,stage time,subsystems,thread first?,total time,version,year/month/week/day |
CODE,COMMENTS,DECISION,DEFECTS,EXPERIENCE,FILES,MODULE,OWNERSHIP,PARTICIPANT,REVISIONS,TEMPORAL,email metrics |
predict acceptance |
| A Study of the Quality-impacting Practices of Modern Code Review at Sony Mobile
|
Churn,Discussion length,Hastily,In-house,Major,Minor,No-Discuss,Ownership,Patch_SD,Size,Total,complexity,entropy,prior defects,relative_churn,review_window,reviewed_churn,reviewed_commit,self-approval,self-verify |
CODE,COMMENTS,DEFECTS,EXPERIENCE,FILES,OWNERSHIP,PARTICIPANT,TEMPORAL |
quality assurance |
| A Study on the Interplay between Pull Request Review and Continuous Integration Builds
|
Accept rate (previously merged PR from the same author),Additions (# of lines added),Age (PR duration from its creation),Changed Files (#of files changed),Comits (# of commits included in the PR),Comments ,Contains Fix (whether the PR aims at fixing an issue),Contribution Rate (% of authors commits before PR),Core Member,Deletions (#of lines deleted),Failed Builds (% failed builds during the PR discussion),First Build Status ,Has Test Code (whether test cases are included in PR),Intra-Branch (whether source and target PR match),Last Build Status,Last Comm. Mention (whether the last commit mentions a user),PR Builds (# of builds over the PR discussion),Review Comments |
Build Related,CODE,COMMENTS,DESCRIPTON,EXPERIENCE,FILES,MODULE,OWNERSHIP,Others,REVISIONS,TEMPORAL |
CI and review |
| A large-scale empirical study of just-in-time quality assurance
|
# changes to modified files,# modified directories,# modified files,# modified subsystems,age,developer experiencce on subsystem,entropy,experience,line before change,lines added,lines deleted,nDev,purpose,recent experience |
CODE,DESCRIPTION,EXPERIENCE,FILES,MODULES,PARTICIPANT,REVISIONS,TEMPORAL |
quality assurance |
| An Exploratory Study of the Pull-based Software Development Model
|
# of changed files,# of comments,# of commits,# of participants,LOC,commits_files_touched (# commits on files touched last 3mons),perc_ext_contribs (ratio of commits from external members),prev_pullreqs (# pull requests submitted by a developer),reqeuster_succ_rate (merged prs by a developer),team_size (# core team members during the last 3 months),test coverage,word |
CODE,COMMENTS,EXPERIENCE,FILES,MODULE,PARTICIPANTS,REVISIONS,project related |
review process |
| An empirical study of the impact of modern code review practices on software quality
|
author ownership,change entropy,churn,complexity,major authors,minor authors,prior defects,size,total authors |
CODE,DEFECTS,OWNERSHIP |
quality assurance |
| Are Fix-Inducing Changes a Moving Target? A Longitudinal Case Study of Just-In-Time Defect Prediction
|
age,awareness,comments,developers,directories,entropy,files ,iterations,lines added,lines deleted,prior changes,recent changes,review window,reviewers,subsystem,subsystem changes,unique changes |
CODE,COMMENTS,EXPERIENCE,FILES,MODULE,PARTICIPANT,REVISIONS,TEMPORAL |
quality assurance |
| Broadcast vs. Unicast Review Technology: Does It Matter?
|
Median review rate (number of lines of codes for each review),Number of Reviewers,Number of Revisions,Post review bugs,Response Delay (delay after a patch review request,Review Length (time),Review Queue,Size (size of a patch) |
CODE,DEFECTS,PARTICIPANT,QUEUE,REVISIONS,TEMPORAL |
review process |
| Do code review practices impact design quality? A case study of the Qt, VTK, and ITK projects
|
A measure of the volatility of the change.,Author ownership,Complexity,Lines of code (LOC).,Major authors,Minor authors,Proportion of changes without discussion,Proportion of hastily reviewed changes,Proportion of reviewed changes,Proportion of reviewed churn,Proportion of self-approved changes,Sum of added and removed lines of code,Total authors,Typical discussion length,Typical review window |
CODE,COMMENTS,EXPERIENCE,OWNERSHIP,Others,PARTICIPANT,REVISIONS,TEMPORAL |
quality assurance |
| Early prediction of merged code changes to prioritize reviewing tasks
|
# reviews ,betweenness centrality,change_num by the owner ,changed file num,changes_files_modified (# times files changed),closeness centrality,clustering coefficient,degree centrality,directory num,eigenvector centrality,experience and expertise,file added num,file deleted num,file type num,file_developer_num (#developers change files),has_bug,has_document,has_feature,has_improve,has_refector,language num,lines added num,lines deleted num,merge_ratio (merged patches by the owner),modify entropy,msg_length,recent_change_num,recent_merge_ratio,review_num (assigned to inspect),segs added num,segs deleted num,segs updated num,subsystem num,subsystem_change_num,subsystem_merge_ratio |
CODE,DESCRIPTION,EXPERIENCE,FILES,LANGUAGE,MODULE,OWNERSHIP,REVISIONS,collaboration network |
predict acceptance |
| How do Multiple Pull Requests Change the Same Code: A Study of Competing Pull Requests in GitHub
|
# added lines,# competing lines,# deleted lines,# edited files,# edits for competing files,# merged by previous developer,# messages,# of commits,LoC of comments,merge or not |
CODE,COMMENTS,DECISION,EXPERIENCE,FILES,REVISIONS |
review process prediction |
| Improving the pull requests review process using learning-to-rank algorithms
|
ccn deleted,bug fix,ccn added,comments added in the source code,commits files changed,contributor succ rate.,description length,files changed,followers,is reviewer.,num commits,prior interaction,readability,social distance,src churn,test churn,test inclusion,title length |
CODE,DESCRIPTON,EXPERIENCE,FILES,MODULE,PARTICIPANT,REVISIONS,collaboration |
review process prediction |
| Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub (from snowball)
|
Collaborator Status,Collaborators,Comments,Commit Size,Files Changed,Followers,Prior Interaction,Repo Maturity,Social Distance,Stars,Test Inclusion |
CODE,COMMENTS,FILES,MODULE,PARTICIPANT,collaboration,project |
technical, non-technical and code review |
| Investigating Code Review Practices in Defective Files: An Empirical Study of the Qt System
|
#authors,#reviewers,Churn,discussion length,non author voters,response delay,review disagreement,review iterations,review rate,review time,reviews no feedback |
CODE,COMMENTS,OWNERSHIP,PARTICIPANT,REVISIONS,TEMPORAL |
quality assurance |
| Investigating code review quality: Do people and participation matter?
|
# comments,# dev on CC,# dev who comment,# files,# prev review on a bug,# rev comment,# writer comments,avg # comment per dev,chunks,module,priority,review queue,reviewer experience,reviewer experience for module,severity,size(LOC]),super review,writer experience,writer experience for module,writers prev patch |
CODE,COMMENTS,DEFECTS,EXPERIENCE,FILES,MODULE,OWNERSHIP,Others,PARTICIPANTS,QUEUE |
quality assurance |
| Investigating technical and non-technical factors influencing modern code review
|
component,organization,patch size,patch writer experience,priority,review queue,reviewer activity |
CODE,DEFECTS,EXPERIENCE,MODULE,QUEUE,project |
technical, non-technical and code review |
| Modern code reviews in open-source projects: which problems do they fix?
|
Author,Code Churn,Number of Changed Files,Package,Reviewer,Task Type |
CODE,DESCRIPTION,FILES,MODULE,OWNERSHIP,PARTICIPANT |
review process prediction |
| Predicting Defectiveness of Software Patches
|
Ave LOC added of patch,Ave LOC deleted of patch,Ave LOC of patch,Ave code complexity of patch,Ave interaction of developer with components in patch,Ave interaction of reviewer with components in patch,Ave recency of interaction of developer withe components in patch,Ave recency of interaction of reviewer with components in patch,Patch review time duration,Priority of associated bug-report,Severity of associated bug-report,Size of patch (number of files),numbe of resolved issues,number of reviewer's comments on patch,number of reviewers |
CODE,COMMENTS,DEFECTS,FILES,Ownership,PARTICIPANT,TEMPORAL |
quality assurance |
| Predicting Pull Request Completion Time: A Case Study on Large Scale Cloud Services
|
Age of the PR author in Microsoft,Age of the PR author in current team,Age of the PR author in the repository,Average age of PRs with similar paths changed,Avg age of PRs Of this developer,Class Member Churn,Class churn,Conditional statements churn,Day of the week,Is .csproj file being edited,Is It Refactor,Is PR created during Business Hours?,Is it Bug Fix,Is it a deprecate change,Is it a merge change,LOC Changed,Loop churn,Method churn,New feature,Number of active PRs at this time,Number of distinct file types,Number of files changed,Number of paths touched,Number of reviewers,PR Title Word Count,PR description word count.,Reference churn,Setting or config. change |
CODE,DECISION,DESCRIPTION,EXPERIENCE,FILES,LANGUAGE,MODULE,Others,PARTICIPANT,QUEUE,REVISIONS |
review process prediction |
| Predicting Usefulness of Code Review Comments Using Textual Features and Developer Experience
|
code element ratio,code ownership,code review ship,conceptual similarity,library experience,question ratio,reading ease,word ratio |
COMMENTS,EXPERIENCE,OWNERSHIP |
review process comments |
| Review participation in modern code review
|
# days since last modification,# dir patches of authors,# dir patches of reviewers,# modified dir,# modified files,# of authors,# prior defects,# prior patches of reviewers,# reviewers of prior patches,churn,description length,directory workload,discussion length of prior patches,entropy,feedback delay of prior patches,overall workload,purpose,recent patches of authors,recent patches of reviewers |
CODE,COMMENTS,DEFECTS,DESCRIPTION,EXPERIENCE,FILES,MODULE,OWNERSHIP,TEMPORAL,WORKLOAD |
review participation |
| Revisiting Code Ownership and Its Relationship with Software Quality in the Scope of Modern Code Review
|
major reviewer, minor reviewer, major reviewer, minor reviewer,#author,#contributor,#reviewer,Proportion of major author,Proportion of minor author,Top RSO (review-specific ownership value of the developer),Top TCO (traditional code ownership value of the developer),churn,entropy,size |
CODE,FILES,OWNERSHIP,PARTICIPANT |
quality assurance |
| Studying Pull Request Merges: A Case Study of Shopify's Active Merchant
|
# author comments,# author in-code comments,# commenting developers,# comments,# commits,# files,# in-code commenting devs,# in-code comments,PR author experience,PR author's affiliation,PR size |
CODE,COMMENTS,EXPERIENCE,FILES,PARTICIPANT,REVISIONS,project |
predict acceptance |
| Studying the Impact of Adopting Continuous Integration on the Delivery Time of Pull Requests
|
# activities,# comments,# impact files,churn,commits per PR,contributor experience,contributor integration,description size,inteval comments,merge time,merge workload,project.queue rank,stack trace attached |
CODE,COMMENTS,DESCRIPTION,EXPERIENCE,FILES,LOG,QUEUE,REVISIONS,TEMPORAL,WORKLOAD |
CI and review |
| Test-Driven Code Review: An Empirical Study
|
Hours the participant worked before performing the experiment,How often(_) they perform code review,How often(_) they program,IsFirstReview,Patch,Role(_) of the participant,TotalDuration,Years of experience(_) as professional developer,Years of experience(_) in Java |
EXPERIENCE,Others,TEMPORAL |
testing and code review |
| The Impact of Human Discussions on Just-in-Time Quality assurance: An Empirical Study on OpenStack and Eclipse
|
#developers that changed the files before,#comments,#inline comments,#lines of code added,#lines of code deleted,#lines of in a file before the change,#modified directories,#modified files,#modified subsystems,#patch revisions,#prior commits by the developer,#prior commits by the developer by their age,#prior commits by the developer on a subsystem,#unique changes to modified files,Comment Sentiment,Commenter Experience,average discussion lag,average time before the last change,avg,comment length,distribution of changes across all files,is the change a defect fix?,issue fix time,reporter experience,review time,reviewer experience |
CODE,COMMENTS,DESCRIPTON,EXPERIENCE,FILES,MODULE,OWNERSHIP,REVISIONS,TEMPORAL |
quality assurance |
| The impact of code review coverage and code review participation on software quality: a case study of the qt, VTK, and ITK projects
|
Proportion of changes without discussions,Proportion of hastily reviewed changes,Proportion of reviewed changes,Proportion of reviewer churn,Proportion of self-approved changes,auther ownership,change entropy,churn,complexity,major authors,minor authors,prior defects,size,total authors |
CODE,DEFECTS,EXPERIENCE,FILES,OWNERSHIP,PARTICIPANT,REVISIONS |
quality assurance |
| The impact of human factors on the participation decision of reviewers in modern code review
|
Core Member Status,Familiarity between the Invited Reviewer and the Patch Author,Median Number of Comments,Number of Concurrent Reviews,Number of Received Review Invitations,Number of Remaining Reviews,Patch Author Code Authoring Experience,Patch Author Reviewing Experience,Patch Size,Review Participation Rate,Reviewer Code Authoring Experience,Reviewer Reviewing Experience |
CODE,COMMENTS,EXPERIENCE,Others,PARTICIPANT,WORKLOAD,collaboration |
review participation |
| The influence of non-technical factors on code review
|
Component (top-level module),Organization,Patch Size (LOC added and deleted),Patch Writer Experience,Priority (bug),Review Queue (number of pending review requests),Reviewer Activity (number of completed reviews) |
CODE,DEFECTS,EXPERIENCE,MODULE,QUEUE,project |
non-technical and code review |
| When Testing Meets Code Review: Why and How Developers Review Tests
|
Churn,Comulative churn,Is test,Major authors,Minor authors,Size,author ownership,prior defects,total authors |
CODE,DEFECTS,MODULE,OWNERSHIP |
testing and code review |
| what factors inluence the reviewer assignment to pull request?
|
commits_pull,developer_type,files_changed,first_pull,location,recent_committer,requester_pull,reviewer_follows_requester,reviewer_pull,status_pull |
DECISION,EXPERIENCE,FILES,OWNERSHIP,Others,PARTICIPANT,REVISIONS |
review participation |