Here’s a development tool that puts in place a system for single or multiple reviews of the code developed. It even offers the opportunity for self-reviews. Read on…

hen I look back, it isn't that we were unaware of some of the recommended development processes, and neither did we believe they were not useful. It is just that the development infrastructure was so poor that we could not effectively implement them. It boiled down to too much effort for very small returns.

These days, it is a shame if developers do not use some of these development tools. Institutionalising some of them makes it easier, as each developer does not need to think about which ones to use. For example, these days, the default repository has become Git. For a common, centralised development repository, in contrast to a distributed environment, Subversion is a perfectly good option. However, Git can work in a centralised environment as well, and is obviously an excellent tool; so, why make an effort to select between alternatives?

Repositories can tie in with automated build systems, which will run the affected test cases and raise alerts in case an update causes regression errors. The build automation still misses issues like potential problems, security concerns or that there may be a better way to implement the code. How do we create an environment so that at least one person looks at the code? UsH WKH SRsW-rHYLHw FRPPDnG WR suEPLW WKH SDWFK WR EH reviewed. Sign into the Web interface of ReviewBoard, associate a reviewer or a group of reviewers with the code patch, and change the state from Draft to Publish. Modify code as per the reviewer's comments, and update the patch for review. Once the code is reviewed and approved, commit the changes to the repository. Finally, close the review request. To a reviewer, the Web interface will show the entries needing review. If a group of people are to review the code, the review request will be shown to each member of the group. Each reviewer will continue to see the item that needs to be reviewed even if someone in the group has already reviewed it, so multiple people can continue to review and offer their comments. However, if a review request needs to be reviewed by any one person from the group, the 'Number of RHYLHws' fiHOG Ln WKH WHE LnWHrIDFH PDy EH usHG WR LgnRrH rHTuHsWs WKDW have already been reviewed but not yet been closed.