Evaluation of software based on review history

• US 8,423,960 B2
• Filed: 03/31/2008
• Issued: 04/16/2013
• Est. Priority Date: 03/31/2008
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: AirBNB Incorporated
• Original Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Inventors: Farchi, Eitan Daniel, Novikov, Sergey, Raz-Pelleg, Orna
• Primary Examiner(s): Wong, Don
• Assistant Examiner(s): Rivera, Anibal
• Application Number:
  US12/058,779
• Publication Number:
  US 20090249299A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,842 Days
• Field of Search: None
• US Class Current: 717/124
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3676 for coverage analysis

Abstract

A method for software processing in which software locations are assigned priorities indicative of respective likelihoods that the locations contain program faults, based on review information pertaining to reviews that have been conducted on respective locations in software code. In some methods, a software location is detected to be critical based on the priorities.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method for software processing, comprising:

obtaining, for a software code, review information pertaining to code reviews, in which human reviewers examine lines of software code, that have been conducted on respective locations in software code;

partitioning the obtained software code into a plurality of individual code locations, each including a plurality of code lines;

processing the review information, by a processor, so as to assign to at least some of the individual locations respective priorities, which are indicative of respective likelihoods that the locations contain program faults, wherein processing the review information comprises predefining a set of classes and respective class priorities, classifying each of the at least some of the locations to one of the classes based on the review information, and assigning the priorities responsively to the class priorities of the respective classes to which the at least some of the locations were classified; and

presenting the at least some of the locations via an output device to a user in accordance with the assigned priorities.

2. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, and comprising allocating a resource for finding the program faults in the respective locations responsively to the assigned priorities, and locating the program faults at the locations using the allocated resource.

3. The computer-implemented method according to claim 2, wherein locating the program faults comprises testing the software code by subjecting the code to a set of test cases, and wherein allocating the resource comprises modifying the set of test cases responsively to the priorities.

4. The computer-implemented method according to claim 3, wherein testing the software comprises obtaining coverage information, which assesses a coverage level of one or more of the locations by the set of test cases, and wherein processing the review information comprises assigning the priorities responsively to both the review information and the coverage information.

5. The computer-implemented method according to claim 2, wherein locating the program faults comprises reviewing the code in at least some of the locations responsively to the priorities.

6. The computer-implemented method according to claim 2, wherein locating the program faults comprises defining one or more formal models of the code in at least some of the locations responsively to the priorities, and verifying the code using the formal models.

7. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein processing the review information comprises assigning the priorities in accordance with

a number of the reviews that have been conducted on the respective locations.

8. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the review information comprises obtaining comments made by human reviewers with respect to reviewed code locations.

9. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the review information comprises obtaining information on code locations pointed at by a human performing a review.

10. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein processing the review information so as to assign to at least some of the locations respective priorities comprises assigning priorities responsive to a number of reviews of each location.

11. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the review information comprises presenting to a human user, by an automated review tool, lines of code and receiving through the tool user input regarding presented code lines.

12. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the review information comprises obtaining review information from a version control system.

13. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein processing the review information so as to assign to at least some of the individual locations respective priorities comprises assigning the priorities by the processor responsive to both information on changes performed to the individual locations and the review information.

14. The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein processing the review information so as to assign to at least some of the individual locations respective priorities comprises assigning the priorities by the processor responsive to the occurrence times of the changes of the individual locations relative to times of reviews of the individual locations.

15. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein processing the review information so as to assign to at least some of the individual locations respective priorities comprises assigning the priorities by the processor responsive to both test coverage information and review information.

16. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the individual locations comprise files, functions or objects of an object oriented software code.

17. Apparatus for software processing, comprising:

a processor, which is coupled to obtain review information pertaining to code reviews of a software code, in which human reviewers examine lines of the software code;

to partition the obtained software code into a plurality of individual code locations, each including a plurality of code lines;

to process the review information so as to assign to at least some of the individual locations respective priorities, which are indicative of respective likelihoods that the locations contain program faults, wherein processing the review information comprises predefining a set of classes and respective class priorities, classifying each of the at least some of the locations to one of the classes based on the review information, and assigning the priorities responsively to the class priorities of the respective classes to which the at least some of the locations were classified; and

an output device, which is operative to present the at least some of the locations to a user in accordance with the assigned priorities.

18. The apparatus for software processing according to claim 17, and comprising a test system, which is configured to test the software code by subjecting the code to a set of test cases and to modify the set of test cases responsively to the priorities.

19. The apparatus for software processing according to claim 18, wherein the test system is configured to obtain coverage information, which assesses a coverage level of one or more of the locations by the set of test cases, and wherein the processor is coupled to assign the priorities responsively to both the review information and the coverage information.

20. The apparatus for software processing according to claim 17, wherein the processor is coupled to assign the priorities in accordance with

a number of the reviews that have been conducted on the respective locations.