A Path to Enhanced Development

Code reviews are an essential practice in software development, pivotal not only for error detection but also for fostering an environment of continuous learning and collaboration. When executed effectively, they can significantly enhance both individual skills and organizational efficiency.

The Foundation of Effective Code Reviews

An effective review scrutinizes how the proposed changes integrate with the existing codebase, focusing on clarity, correctness, and adherence to established coding practices. Reviewers should critically evaluate the necessity and implementation of the changes, suggesting more granular modifications if the changes are too expansive.

The Art of Communication

The tone in which feedback is delivered can dramatically influence team dynamics. Constructive feedback should be presented through open-ended questions and thoughtful suggestions rather than direct criticism. This approach encourages a collaborative atmosphere and reduces the likelihood of defensive responses. It is essential to recognize the efforts of developers and maintain an empathetic and supportive tone throughout the review process.

Decision Making in Reviews

The decision to approve changes, request modifications, or leave comments unresolved should be clearly communicated. Reviews should be flexible, allowing for follow-up changes when necessary, with reviewers making themselves available for quick re-assessments to accommodate urgent updates.

From Written Reviews to Direct Conversations

When extensive feedback from a review indicates potential misunderstandings, switching from written comments to direct conversations can be beneficial. This transition can help clarify issues more effectively and expedite the review process, especially in cases of complex or contentious changes.

Navigating Challenges in Remote Reviews

Remote and asynchronous reviews present unique challenges, particularly when reviewers are in different time zones. To mitigate these challenges, it’s advantageous to schedule discussions during overlapping working hours or to utilize video calls, enhancing clarity and collaboration.

Cultivating a Supportive Review Culture

Organizations should strive to create a culture that values thorough and empathetic code reviews, recognizing them as crucial to the development process. Continuous improvement in review practices should be encouraged, and engineers should feel empowered to both contribute to and learn from each review session.

By prioritizing effective communication, thoughtful feedback, and continuous improvement, organizations can make code reviews a cornerstone of development excellence, leading to higher quality software and more productive teams.

Integrating Newcomers through Code Reviews

For new team members, adapting to a new codebase and review process can be daunting. A supportive review culture is crucial in easing this transition. Experienced reviewers should use the initial code reviews to not only evaluate the technical aspects but also to mentor and guide newcomers. By explaining alternative approaches, pointing to coding guidelines, and maintaining a positive tone, reviewers can help new engineers integrate effectively while maintaining high standards. This practice ensures that new developers feel welcomed and supported as they navigate their initial contributions to the team.

Based on this blog link: https://stackoverflow.blog/2019/09/30/how-to-make-good-code-reviews-better/

From the blog CS@Worcester – Coding by asejdi and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Although I wasn’t present for the class in which code reviewing was introduced, it seems like a pretty simple topic to understand. It consists of… well, reviewing code; the only thing is, it can’t be done alone. Code review’s core and effectiveness lies in cooperation with others, where two or more people are required to even attempt code review. Of course, you can literally “code review,” as in, you review your own code but this refers to something more. 

What does it mean to review when it comes to code? Well, everyone is human, for the most part, and humans are prone to mistakes; and in the case of developers, these end up as bugs, errors, and everything in between. Code review allows others to look through one’s code to find these mishaps that the original developers may have missed or overlooked. I am also human and have had many cases in which I get stuck and have to ask a friend to look through my code just for them to point out something so simple and easy to spot yet I managed to miss. 

Code reviews encompass not only the spotting of mistakes but also the improvement of overall code, so as to have a better, more-refined end product before merging and such. This improvement of overall code includes but is not limited to structure, cohesion, cleanliness, and readability. Clean code is something that I hadn’t heard of until somewhat recently, so that aspect of my code from the past and even now can be improved upon heavily and would be greatly appreciated. 

Code reviews are usually chances for the one being reviewed to correct their mistakes and improve their code but there is also an opportunity for the reviewer to learn. The reviewer may encounter new techniques, solutions, and perspectives through this process, ultimately benefiting both reviewer and reviewee. 

One of the major downsides to code review is that the length and content of them depends entirely on the length of the code; and code can get to some very large sizes. The time spent reviewing especially large code could potentially be put into the current project, workflow, or what have you. 

As someone who is not so confident in their coding skill and proficiency, I believe that code reviews are great opportunities to learn and improve, which will in turn improve my confidence in my skill. There is much to be gained with code review and the downsides seem to only apply to much larger projects; so as a student and novice developer, they will be great to implement to my learning.

https://medium.com/@priyanthinisivasubramaniyam/everything-to-know-about-code-review-as-a-beginner-2a360cdd89ca

From the blog CS@Worcester – Kyler's Blog by kylerlai and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

Unit testing is an important method that hammers out bugs in our code and verifies its behavior. Every line of code is critical to keep our projects functioning, so we must understand the benefits and best practices for unit testing to maintain our code correctly. As the title suggests, this blog post, “Unit Testing | What it is, How it Works, Types & Top Benefits”, lays out the principles of unit testing, the different types, and the benefits for software development.

 Diane Wong’s blog is a concise guide to unit testing and its benefits. It covers the types, techniques, advantages/disadvantages, and best practices of unit testing, giving an overview for newcomers to coding and those well-versed in it. I chose this resource due to its simplistic coverage of many essentials to unit testing. The blog is organized with a table of contents that leads those seeking information on a particular aspect of unit testing. It was a good start for my understanding of unit testing, and those new to the method would benefit from the blog.

I found the information concise and direct when reflecting on the blog post. This isn’t a blog that will delve into specifics on any technique or method of testing but will give you a general overview, which is what I wanted. We discussed many aspects of unit testing in class, including testing techniques like Black Box, White Box, Gray Box, Mocking, and Stubs, so some information was a refresher. The main benefit I got from this blog is a better understanding of the advantages unit testing brings, best practices, and why we use it. It lowers overall costs, allows for automation, makes debugging more manageable, and increases the team’s efficiency. The best practices were short but something to remember when conducting unit testing, like focusing on one module at a time or using conventional naming practices. The blog recommended unit testing tools besides JUnit, like Jasmine, TestNG, PHPUnit, and Mocha, which I may look into if they have better features than JUnit. Overall, the blog filled in gaps in my knowledge, and it was something I could quickly go back to or recommend to people new to the concept.

 I intend to use that knowledge for future software development projects and teach those who are unaware so we can effectively build and debug our code. Before using unit testing in practice, developers must understand the fundamentals, best practices, and advantages so they can develop good habits from the beginning. 

Link to the blog: https://testsigma.com/blog/unit-testing/

From the blog CS@Worcester – KindlCoding by jkindl and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

This week’s blog post topic covers Pairwise and Combinatorial Testing. I chose this topic because we will soon cover it in class and having some background information prior to any activities involving this method will be useful to relate back to.

Pairwise Testing, also known as All-Pairs Testing, focuses on efficiency by testing every possible pair of input parameters, rather than every single combination. For instance, if you have a form with fields for name, email, and phone number, Pairwise Testing would cover combinations like name and email, name and phone number, and email and phone number. It’s a straightforward way to catch potential bugs without an overwhelming number of test cases. With Combinatorial Testing, it builds on Pairwise Testing by considering combinations of three or more parameters together. Using our form example, Combinatorial Testing would include triples like name, email, and phone number. This comprehensive approach aims to uncover bugs that might only appear with specific combinations of inputs. This testing method aims to optimize efficiency and coverage. Software testing can be time-consuming, especially with numerous parameters and scenarios. Pairwise and Combinatorial Testing streamline the process, allowing you to detect more bugs in less time.

The key benefits to this method is it helps in reducing the number of test cases needed to achieve “good” coverage. Instead of exhaustive testing, you’re strategically covering the most important combinations. Secondly, it helps in identifying interactions between parameters that might lead to unexpected behavior. By testing these combinations, you’re better prepared for real-world usage scenarios.

Of course, there are disadvantages to Pairwise and Combinatorial Testing. One, It can become tedious due to the large number of test cases required to cover all input combinations. Two, It relies on the interaction of pairs of parameters to determine outcomes, but this assumption may not always hold true, potentially missing bugs. And three, additional tests might be necessary to complement pairwise testing, adding extra time and effort to the testing process.

The main challenge when using this method is selecting the correct input parameters. The choice of relevant parameters impacts software behavior. Careful selection ensures thorough test coverage and defect detection. However, accurately determining parameter interactions is equally as difficult, because it could potentially result in the selection of incorrect combinations.

Some of the tools used by teams are PICT, IBM FoCuS, ACTS, Hexawise, Jenny, etc. These tools help automate the test case design process by generating a compact set of parameter value choices as the desired test cases. This is done by applying the all-pairs testing technique, which involves testing all possible combinations of two parameters.

Blog Post: https://testsigma.com/blog/pairwise-testing/

From the blog CS@Worcester – Computer Science Through a Junior by Winston Luu and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

While writing about static testing, I spoke about my positive disposition toward dynamic testing due to its ease of access. Over the time spent writing the last blog In Defense of Static Testing, I grew to understand the benefits of testing with that approach. Now I seek to learn why dynamic testing may not be as “easy” as I once understood it to be.

One lesson I learned from the previous reading on static testing was the idea of ‘time and place’. Both testing methods are to be used under certain circumstances, rather than interchangeably. The blog post, Dynamic Testing, written by Swati Twade brings up this very idea. Twade states that due to dynamic testing’s cost, it ought to be used in effective ways. Furthermore, she warns that if dynamic testing is not used enough during the early stages of development, then there will be much more costly issues down the line. Here a certain balance must be found. The development team must use dynamic testing sparingly to reduce costs, yet must use it frequently enough to prevent larger issues from forming during the final stages of production. In these situations, static testing may be appropriate, as between dynamic testing intervals the development team can review the code and documentation to ensure that all aspects of the program are meeting their specifications. Naturally, if the team was only focused on these two aspects, then static testing could help in minimizing the use of dynamic testing however, dynamic testing captures much more than the code. According to Twade’s definition of dynamic testing, it seeks to capture both errors during the program’s runtime and how the execution of the software affects the hardware. These two focuses of testing cannot be captured by static testing, and require resources to use dynamic testing.

Through this reading, I’ve slowly begun to understand why both dynamic and static tests must be used under certain circumstances. Before researching this topic, I thought the two could be used interchangeably, without considering the resources it takes to conduct each test. Furthermore, each test focuses on reviewing specific content. Dynamic testing places high priority how on the program behaves once executed, meanwhile static testing places its priority on both the source code and documentation. Using these tests interchangeably without first understanding the conditions they work most effectively under will yield less than successful findings. Ultimately between these two blog posts, I have reinforced my knowledge of the testing processes, and have learned under what circumstances each thrives in.

-AG

Link to Original Post:

https://www.educba.com/dynamic-testing

From the blog CS@Worcester – Computer Science Progression by ageorge4756 and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.