I can almost sense the indignation from some of you. You read the title and then began to seethe a little. Then you clicked the link to see what kind sophistry awaited you. "There is no substitute for peer review."
Relax. I agree with you. In fact, I think that any robust review process should include a healthy amount of human and automated review. And, of course, you also need your test pyramid, integration and deployment strategies, and the whole nine yards. Having a truly mature software shop takes a great deal of work and involves standing on the shoulders of giants. So, please, give me a little latitude with the premise of the post.
Today I want to talk about how one could replace manual code review with automated code review only, should the need arise.
You might struggle to imagine why this would ever prove necessary. Those of you with many years logged in the enterprise in particular probably find this puzzling. But you might find manual code inspection axed from your process for any number of reasons other than, "we've decided we don't value the activity."
First and most egregiously, a team's manager might come along with an eye toward cost savings. "I need you to spend less time reading code and more time writing it!" In that case, you'll need to move away from the practice, and going toward automation beats abandoning it altogether. Of course, if that happens, I also recommend dusting off your resume. In the first place, you have a penny-wise, pound-foolish manager. And, secondly, management shouldn't micromanage you at this level. Figuring out how to deliver good software should be your responsibility.
But let's consider less unfortunate situations. Perhaps you currently work in a team of 2, and number 2 just handed in her two weeks’ notice. Even if your organization back-fills your erstwhile teammate, you have some time before the newbie can meaningfully review your code. Or, perhaps you work for a larger team, but everyone gradually becomes so busy and fragmented in responsibility as not to have the time for much manual peer review.
In my travels, this last case actually happens pretty frequently. And then you have to choose: abandon the practice altogether, or move toward an automated version. Pretty easy choice, if you ask me.
Assuming no one has yet forced your hand, pause to take inventory. What currently happens as part of your review process? What sorts of feedback do you get?
If your reviews happen in some kind of asynchronous format, then great. This should prove easy enough to capture since you'll need only to go through your emails or issues list or whatever you use. Do you have in-person reviews, but chronicle the findings? Just as good for our purposes here.
But if these reviews happen in more ad hoc fashion, then you have some work to do. Start documenting the feedback and resultant action items. After all, in order to create a suitable replacement strategy for an activity, you must first thoroughly understand that activity.
With your list in place, you can now start figuring out how to replace your expiring manual process. First up, identify the things you can easily automate that come up during reviews.
This will include cosmetic concerns. Does your code comply with the team standard? Does it comply with typical styling for your tech stack? Have you consistently cased and named things? If that stuff comes up during your reviews, you should probably automate it anyway and not waste time discussing it. But, going forward, you will need to automate it.
But you should also look for anything that you can leverage automation to catch. Do you talk about methods getting too long or about not checking parameters for null before dereferencing? You can also automate things like that. How about compliance with non-cosmetic best practices? Automate that as well with an automated code review tool.
And spend some time researching what you can automate. Even if no analyzer or review tool catches something out of the box, you can often customize them to catch it (or write your own thing, if needed).
Now, we move onto the more difficult things. "This method seems pretty unreadable." "Couldn't you use the builder pattern here?" I'm talking here about the sorts of things for which manual code review really shines and serves its purpose. You'll have a harder time replacing this. But that doesn't mean you can't do something.
First, I recommend that you audit the review history you've been compiling. See what comes up the most frequently, and make a list of those things. And group them conceptually. If you see a lot of "couldn't you use Builder" and "couldn't you use Factory Method," then generalize to "couldn't you use a design pattern?"
Once you have this list, if nothing else, you can use it as a checklist for yourself each time you commit code. But you might also see whether you can conceive of some sort of automation. Or maybe you just resolve to revisit the codebase periodically, with a critical eye toward these sorts of questions.
You need to see if you can replace the human insights of a peer. Admittedly, this presents a serious challenge. But get creative and see what you can come up with.
The final plank I'll mention involves changing the way you approach development and review in general. For whatever reason, human review of your work has become a scarce resource. You need to adjust accordingly.
Picking up a good bit of automated review makes up part of this adjustment, as does creating of a checklist to apply to yourself. But you need to go further as well. Take an approach wherein you look to become more self-sufficient for any of the littler things and store up your scarce access to human reviewers for the truly weighty architectural decisions. When these come up, enlist the help of someone else in your organization or even the internet.
On top of that, look opportunistically for ways to catch your own mistakes and improve. Everyone has to learn from their mistakes, but with less margin for error, you need to learn from them and automate their prevention going forward. Again, automated review helps here, but you'll need to get creative.
Having peer review yanked out from under you undeniably presents a challenge. Luckily, however, you have more tools than ever at your disposal to pick up the slack. Make use of them. When you find yourself in a situation with the peer review safety net restored, you'll be an even better programmer for it.
SubMain offers CodeIt.Right that easily integrates into Visual Studio for flexible and intuitive automated code review solution that works real-time, on demand, at the source control check-in or as part of your build.
Learn more how CodeIt.Right can help you automate code reviews and improve your code quality.
I'm a passionate software developer and active blogger. Read about me at my site. View all posts by Erik Dietrich
a@href@title, b, blockquote@cite, em, i, strike, strong, sub, sup, u