Difference between revisions of "CRV2 CodeReviewAgile"

Revision as of 21:30, 20 June 2013

Charly, remember that it's "code review guide", not "testing guide"

Some definitions about Agile

The Agile name is an umbrella for quite a lot of practices that range from programming, to testing, to project management and everything in between.

Agile has some key practices that could affect the way the code is reviewed.

Agile Development is well suited for code review, as two of its practices are "pair programming" and "peer review". AD incorporates code review in itself, in what traditionally was seem as another phase.

Agile blurs the difference between developing and testing, and so does with code review. It is not an external activity.

Pair Programming

This technique is quite controversial, but when its adopted it has the benefits of making better code, as there is one programmer supervising cooperatively the other one's work. If both programmers know this guide, they will apply it continuously.

Peer Review

This one is enforced by the usage of tools like .... that ask another user for a code review before commiting to the versioning system.

Life Cycle

Agile tries to keep the code testing and review as near as possible to the development phase, there is no such thing as the "develop, test, code review cycle.

Clean Code and "Smells"

The role of testing

It is so fundamental, that the xDD pervades Agile, test first, test earlier

Continuous integration

it triggers the tests and often static code analysis too. it makes detection of integration problems arise very quickly.

The role of automatic static code analysis in the Agile Methodologies

Test Driven Development

It aims at code simplicity due to the need of making it testeable

Behavior Driven Development

....

Domain Driven Design

....

Refactoring

Refactoring is the art of changing the code with out changing its behavior. The problem is that thanks to the heavy testing, you can trust that the interface does not change, but behind it, the code can be very volatile. You have to review the code continously, another argument for peer review and automatic static analysis.

Code Reviewing an Agile Project

If you are going to review an Agile Team project code, the best thing that you can do is give this guide to that Team as early as possible and most of your work will be done for you.

In order to review an Agile Project, you will have to extend the review to the tests.

Are there enough tests?

Is the code covered by the tests?

Are there the trivial tests?

Are there commented out tests?

Are boundary conditions tested?

Are bugs exhaustively tested?

Are the test automatic?

Do the tests conform to F.I.R.S.T.?

 Fast: a slow test is a candidate for removal, as it slows down the "make test, implement, test, refactor" cycle.

 Independent: one test can not depend on the execution of another one, the order should not matter.

 Repeatable: one test should give always the same result in any environment if nothing has changed in the code.

 Self-validating: the result of a test should be Pass or Fail, nothing else. There should not be any manual intervention needed.

 Timely: the test should be written before the code. That can not be detected with code review, but you can always see the logs of the versioning system.

References and sources:

Clean Code: A handbook for Agile Software Craftsmanship - Robert C. Martin

http://martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html

not used http://refactoring.com/

not used http://dddcommunity.org/