Code reviews are not (primarily) for finding bugs
Author: Jacek Czerwonka
Last Update: 9/27/2016
Peer code reviews are a standard practice in software engineering. Open source workflows especially are designed to enforce a successful peer review before the merge of a change into the main codebase. Who reviews code and accepts or blocks the change from becoming a part of the codebase is crucially important.
Multiple perspectives improve the code review
The process of code reviewing in software engineering is similar to a plan review in civil engineering or a paper review in academia. In all these, there is the assumption that the quality of output increases by applying differing viewpoints to the subject being reviewed and allowing the author to consider and apply the feedback before finalizing the work.
What engineers expect from code reviews
As software engineers, we often claim the primary goal of code reviewing is to find bugs. But code quality is only one of several benefits. In addition, we want reviewing to help us ensure our code’s long-term maintainability. We treat the reviewing process as a knowledge sharing tool and an avenue to broadcast ongoing progress . On the surface, these are different purposes, but the common thread is that code reviews allow a group of people to communicate over a shared view of an evolving artifact.
Code reviews have a cost
Because of their many uses and benefits, code reviews are a standard part of the modern software engineering workflow. However, they come with non-trivial costs.
Cost of delay
Since code reviews require heavy involvement of people, code reviewing is often the lengthiest part of code integration. The median time from a review being requested to receiving all necessary sign-offs is about 24 hours, with many lasting days, sometimes weeks .
On teams where code reviewing is a standard practice, the total time spent by each developer on code reviewing activities is on average between 2 and 6 hours per week [2,3].
Keeping in mind the significant costs of code reviewing, it is worth asking: do we currently use code reviews in the most efficient way? In what situations do code reviews provide more value than others? What is the value of consistently applying code reviews to all code changes?
We studied the effectiveness of code reviews
Having many goals for code reviews does not make it easy to understand when code reviews are most beneficial. The time spent waiting for the comments makes it important to assess how to get the most value in the overall engineering workflow. Therefore, we undertook a study to understand in detail the costs and benefits of the code review process. We used an abundance of data coming from the engineering systems across a diverse set of projects. 
Code reviews rarely find functional bugs
Contrary to the often stated primary goal of code reviews, they often do not find functionality issues. Only about 15% of comments provided by reviewers indicate a possible bug in the code. Bugs that should block a code commit likely are found less frequently. In contrast, at least 50% of all comments provided by reviewers give feedback related to the long-term code maintainability.
How to make code reviews more effective
The modern code review process is expensive. Not only does it cost a significant effort in terms of time spent, but also it forces the reviewer to switch context away from their current work.
Reviewers who know the context give more useful advice
The usefulness of code review comments, as judged by the author of a code change, correlates with reviewers’ experience. Without prior exposure to the part of code base being reviewed, on average only 33% of any reviewer’s comments are deemed useful by the author of a change. However, reviewers typically learn very fast. When reviewing the same part of code base for the third time, the usefulness ratio increases to about 67% of their comments. By the fourth time, it is equivalent to the project’s long-term average .
Review code in small batches
Code review usefulness negatively correlates with the size of a code review. That is, the more files there are in a single review, the lower the overall rate of useful feedback. The decrease however was noticeable only for reviews with 20 or more changed files. In addition, the absolute number of useful comments per review peaked at 6 per batch for reviews of around 50 files. For larger review batches The number of comments actually decreased.
Review with short turnaround
A long time in review causes process stalls and affects anyone who might be waiting to take a dependency on the new code. In addition, the longer the review time, the harder it is for the author to switch back to the change and incorporate the feedback of the reviewers without potentially introducing new defects.
Create an alternative to waiting for feedback
For example, requiring two sign-offs for all code changes will make costs exceed the benefits of code reviewing in some of the cases. Moreover, since code reviews find commit blocking defects relatively infrequently, it might be prudent to change the practices to better fit that finding. One of Microsoft’s large teams recently instituted a policy in which a developer is allowed to proceed with a commit after the very first code review sign-off. If there are more comments coming after that, another commit can be made to finalize the change.
This article is based upon a chapter from the upcoming book “Perspectives on Data Science for Software Engineering”, which will be published later in 2016 by Elsevier.
 Alberto Bacchelli and Christian Bird. 2013. Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’13). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 712-721.
 Internal Microsoft study.
 Amiangshu Bosu and Jeffrey Carver. 2013. Impact of Peer Code Review on Peer Impression Formation: A Survey. Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), 2013. Baltimore, MD, USA, 133-142.
 Jacek Czerwonka, Nachiappan Nagappan, Wolfram Schulte, and Brendan Murphy. 2013. CODEMINE: Building a Software Development Data Analytics Platform at Microsoft. IEEE Software 30, 4 (July 2013), 64-71.
 Peter C. Rigby and Christian Bird. 2013. Convergent contemporary software peer review practices. In Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2013). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 202-212.
 Amiangshu Bosu, Michaela Greiler, and Christian Bird, Characteristics of Useful Code Reviews: An Empirical Study at Microsoft. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2015).