App prefinals 06 0.2

€� Continuously improve the development and inspection process. • Record the causes of major identified defects. • Perform root cause analysis to identify any systemic defect with development or inspection process. • Determine corrective action to address any systemic defects in the software process. • Make recommendations to the process improvement team.

The author corrects the defects and carries out any necessary investigations.

The moderator verifies that the author has resolved the defects and investigations.

Find requirements defects. • Confirm if the requirements are correct. • Inspectors review each page of requirements and raise questions or concerns. • The moderator records identified defects.

It is a peer review in which the author of a deliverable, such as a document or source code, brings one (1) or more reviewers through the deliverable. Its objectives are to get feedback from the reviewers on the quality of the document or code and to familiarize the review audience with the author’s work. The walkthrough includes several roles, namely, the review leader, the author, the scribe, and the review audience.

N is the act of systematically convening with fellow programmers to check each other’s code for faultsto ensure the code meets quality standards. Code reviews may focus on coding standards only or as well asfinding defects in the software code. The identified issues during the review are recorded.

This approach uses automated code analysis techniquesthat can pick out problematic patterns within the source code. The source code analysis drive automated code reviews. The code checkers are often built-in into Integrated Development Environments (IDEs). The IDEs automatically assess the codes to identify code problems. For example, if a variable is declared but never used or used without being initialized, this is commonly flagged up without the developer having to invoke a tool explicitly.

Some properties of code quality are difficult to assess automatically. In this approach, the developers themselves reviews the code to pick out problems. Then, the reviewers manually assess source codes before deployment. This is usually a two-step process where the developers have to understand the program first so that they can form an opinion of its implementation and design. Only then they can properly evaluate the program.

W is a lightweight variant of the code inspections because it does not rely on face-to-face meetings. This operates on tools and development processes.

To enable code reviews, integrate reviewing tools such as Google’s Gerrit and Microsoft’s CodeFlow with version repositories to act as gatekeepers to commits. A repository is a central file storage location. It is used by version control systems to store multiple versions of files that can be accessed by multiple users. Figure 1 illustrates a typical modern code review workflow using a code reviewing tool.

€� This development approach enforces modern code review and does not use code reviewing tools. This revolves around a mechanism known as a “pull request.” Refer to Figure 2 for the illustration of the flow of a pull-based development.