SOLUTION OF CONSTRAINTS THROUGH THINKING PROCESS IN SOFTWARE CODE REVIEWS

Abstract

The high quality of software produced in software projects is vital for the success and life of institutions. Software defects can lead to reduced customer satisfaction, increased maintenance costs, and / or reduced productivity and utility. Software code review is one of the most important techniques used to improve software quality and reduce errors in software. Software code review is the process by which one or more people evaluate a code before writing a new version and putting it in a code repository.

 

The main purpose of the code is to prevent defects and to be able to understand the code at the same time as it is to carefully examine the code against deviations from the development standards. Another goal is to help people who write code to produce much better products in the future. In this study, it is aimed to investigate the reasons why the code review process cannot be implemented and to solve these reasons with the “Theory of Constraints Thinking Process”.

Keywords

• Theory of constraints,thinking processes,software code review process

References

1. Goldratt, E.M. (1990a)What is this thing called theory of constraints and how should it be implemented? Massachusetts:North River Press Goldratt, E.M. (1990b). The haystack syndrome: Sifting information out of the data ocean. New York: North River Press Goldratt, E.M. (1990c). What is this thing called the theory of constraints? New York: North River Press Klein, D., & DeBruine, M. (1995). A thinking process for establishing management policies. Review of Business, 16(3), 31–37. Dettmer, H.W. (1997). Goldratt’s theory of constraints: A systems approach to continuous improvement. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press Ring, P.S., & Perry, J.L. (1985). Strategic management in public and private organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints. The Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 276–286. Fagan, M. E. (1976). “Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development,” IBM Systems Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 182 –211 Rigby P. C., & German D. M., & Storey M. A. (2008). “Open source software peer review practices: a case study of the apache server,” in Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineering. ACM, pp. 541–550 Rigby P. C., & Bird C. (2013). “Convergent contemporary software peer review practices,” in Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, ser. ESEC/FSE, pp. 202–212. Bacchelli A., & Bird C. (2013). “Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review,” in Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Press, pp. 712–721. Baysal O., & Kononenko O., & Holmes R., & Godfrey M. W. (2013). “The influence of non-technical factors on code review,” in Reverse Engineering (WCRE), 2013 20th Working Conference on. IEEE, pp. 122–131 Bosu A., & Greiler M., & Bird C. (2015). Characteristics of Useful Code Reviews: An Empirical Study at Microsoft, 12th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories Bosu A., & Carver J.C., & Bird C., & Orbeck J., & Chockley C. (2017). Process Aspects and Social Dynamics of Contemporary Code Review: Insights from Open Source Development and Industrial Practice at Microsoft, IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering, Vol. 43, No. 1. Sripada S., & Reddy Y.R., & Sureka A. (2015). In Support Of Peer Code Review And Inspection In An Undergraduate Software Engineering Course, 28th Conference On Software Engineering Education And Training Bernhart M., & Grechenig T. (2013). On The Understanding Of Programs With Continuous Code Reviews, IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, San Francisco, USA Mantyla M. V., & Lassenius C. (2009). What Types Of Defects Are Really Discovered In Code Reviews?, IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering, Vol. 35, NO. 3