Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

2014 State of Code Review Survey Results

•
•

We surveyed over 550 Software Professionals to discover the latest trends and insights on code review adoption and practices. Here are the results!

1 of 34
Download to read offline
Quality Matters: The 2014 State of Code Review Survey Results
Contents About the survey Why does code review matter Current state of code review –Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported –By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution Obstacles to reviews –Code review in general, tool-supported Conclusion & recommendations
About the survey Conducted by SmartBear from August- October 2014 2nd annual survey – first launched in 2013 Over 600 respondents, 560 completed responses Conducted via email, social media, website
Contents About the survey Why does code review matter Current state of code review –Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported –By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution Obstacles to reviews –Code review in general, tool-supported Conclusion & recommendations
What Do You Feel is the Number One Thing a Company Can Do to Improve Code Quality? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Code Review Unit Testing Integration Testing Other Function Testing 35% 24% 17% 13% 12% % Responded
Satisfaction with Software Quality is Linked with Ability to Ship Releases 87% 13% Able to Ship Regularly 54% 46% Unable to Ship Regularly/Neutral Satisfied Dissatisfied/Neutral
What Do You Think Are The Most Important Benefits of Code Review? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 84% 62% 61% 56% 48% 27% 26% 23% 21% 16% % Responded
Contents About the survey Why does code review matter Current state of code review –Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported –By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution Obstacles to reviews –code review in general, tool-supported Conclusion & recommendations
Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Industry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 100% 83% 81% 80% 79% 75% 75% 73% 72% 69% 58% % Responded * Indicates small subsample
Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Industry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 67% 65% 63% 60% 57% 52% 52% 52% 48% 40% 40% % Responded * Indicates small subsample
Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Industry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 86% 72% 70% 67% 66% 65% 63% 60% 56% 55% 35% % Responded * Indicates small subsample
Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Company Size 39% 49% 63% 40% 77% 76% 83% 74% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Less than 100 employees 100 to 500 employees 500 to 2000 employees 2000+ employees Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Daily/Weekly
Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Company Size 17% 16% 19% 18% 53% 43% 54% 57% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Less than 100 employees 100 to 500 employees 500 to 2000 employees 2000+ employees Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Company Size 52% 63% 75% 71% 33% 41% 56% 45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Less than 100 employees 100 to 500 employees 500 to 2000 employees 2000+ employees Uses Tool-Based Code Review Uses Tool-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Dev Team Size 67% 81% 76% 81% 27% 51% 50% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Less than 5 people 5 to 20 people 20 to 50 people More than 50 people Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Daily/Weekly
Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Dev Team Size 44% 51% 61% 68% 8% 16% 28% 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Less than 5 people 5 to 20 people 20 to 50 people More than 50 people Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Dev Team Size 48% 66% 80% 81% 27% 44% 59% 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Less than 5 people 5 to 20 people 20 to 50 people More than 50 people Uses Tool-Based Code Review Uses Tool-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Team Distribution 73% 78% 78% 46% 41% 47% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% One location Two or more locations or countries Multiple sites, but team is colocated Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Daily/Weekly
Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Team Distribution 52% 53% 54% 16% 20% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% One location Two or more locations/countries Multiple sites, but team is colocated Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Use Meeting-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Team Distribution 51% 70% 65% 28% 49% 44% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% One location Two or more locations/countries Multiple sites, but team is colocated Uses Tool-Based Code Review Use Tool-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
% of Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Level of Satisfaction of Software Quality 76% 24% Satisfied 74% 26% Dissatisfied/Neutral Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Does Not Use Ad-Hoc Code Review
% of Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Level of Satisfaction of Software Quality 56% 44% Satisfied 44% 56% Dissatisfied/Neutral Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Does Not Use Meeting-Based Code…
% of Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Level of Satisfaction of Software Quality 67% 33% Satisfied 56% 44% Dissatisfied/Neutral Uses Tool-Based Code Review Does Not Use Tool-Based Code Review
Do You Have A Preferred Source Control System? 0% 10% 20% 30% 27% 26% 15% 10% 9% 4% 4% 5% % Responded
Contents About the survey Why does code review matter Current state of code review –Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported –By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution Obstacles to reviews –Code review in general, tool-supported Conclusion & recommendations
What Obstacles Prevent You From Doing Any Type of Code Review 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Workload Deadline/Time Constraints Lack of Manpower Reviews are too Time- Consuming Location of Team Members Reviews are Tedious/Repetitive 63% 46% 34% 25% 18% 15% % Responded
What Obstacles Prevent You From Doing Tool-Based Type of Code Review 38% 36% 30% 26% 17% 14% 14% 9% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Workload Lack of Budget Deadline/Time Constraints Lack of Managerial Buy-In Lack of Manpower SCM Integration Reviews are too Time-Consuming Reviews are Tedious/Repetitive Location of Team Members % Responded
I Often Find It Challenging to Collaborate with Team Members on Large Projects 6% 29% 27% 34% 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neither Disagree Nor Agree 4 - Agree 5 - Strongly Agree % Responded
Satisfaction with Quality is Linked with How Challenging it is to Collaborate with Team Members 65% 35% Satisfied 50% 50% Dissatisfied/Neutral Not Challenging/Neutral Challenging
My Company Is Able to Get Releases Out On Time Regularly 1% 15% 18% 51% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neither Disagree Nor Agree 4 - Agree 5 - Strongly Agree % Responded
I am Satisfied with the Overall Quality of the Software I Help Produce 1% 11% 13% 61% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neither Disagree Nor Agree 4 - Agree 5 - Strongly Agree % Responded
Contents About the survey Why does code review matter Current state of code review –Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported –By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution Obstacles to reviews –Code review in general, tool-supported Conclusion & recommendations
Developers and Testers, Managers and End-Users Agree on the Importance of Tool-Based Code Review 66% 53% 65% 63% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Development Testing Manager End-User Implementing a Code Review Tool Is An Important Priority
Conclusion and recommendations Code quality matters –Frequent releases, time to market, satisfied customers Companies in many industries do code review –Ad-hoc reviews are more popular than meeting-based •75% ad hoc reviews, 50% meeting-based reviews, 60% tool-based reviews –Perceived to improve quality Obstacles to effectiveness –Workload and deadlines = planning (as ever) Tool-based reviews –Use more regularly –Use tools to support reviews – best of both worlds

More Related Content

2014 State of Code Review Survey Results

  • 1. Quality Matters: The 2014 State of Code Review Survey Results
  • 2. Contents About the survey Why does code review matter Current state of code review –Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported –By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution Obstacles to reviews –Code review in general, tool-supported Conclusion & recommendations
  • 3. About the survey Conducted by SmartBear from August- October 2014 2nd annual survey – first launched in 2013 Over 600 respondents, 560 completed responses Conducted via email, social media, website
  • 4. Contents About the survey Why does code review matter Current state of code review –Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported –By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution Obstacles to reviews –Code review in general, tool-supported Conclusion & recommendations
  • 5. What Do You Feel is the Number One Thing a Company Can Do to Improve Code Quality? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Code Review Unit Testing Integration Testing Other Function Testing 35% 24% 17% 13% 12% % Responded
  • 6. Satisfaction with Software Quality is Linked with Ability to Ship Releases 87% 13% Able to Ship Regularly 54% 46% Unable to Ship Regularly/Neutral Satisfied Dissatisfied/Neutral
  • 7. What Do You Think Are The Most Important Benefits of Code Review? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 84% 62% 61% 56% 48% 27% 26% 23% 21% 16% % Responded
  • 8. Contents About the survey Why does code review matter Current state of code review –Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported –By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution Obstacles to reviews –code review in general, tool-supported Conclusion & recommendations
  • 9. Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Industry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 100% 83% 81% 80% 79% 75% 75% 73% 72% 69% 58% % Responded * Indicates small subsample
  • 10. Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Industry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 67% 65% 63% 60% 57% 52% 52% 52% 48% 40% 40% % Responded * Indicates small subsample
  • 11. Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Industry 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 86% 72% 70% 67% 66% 65% 63% 60% 56% 55% 35% % Responded * Indicates small subsample
  • 12. Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Company Size 39% 49% 63% 40% 77% 76% 83% 74% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Less than 100 employees 100 to 500 employees 500 to 2000 employees 2000+ employees Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Daily/Weekly
  • 13. Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Company Size 17% 16% 19% 18% 53% 43% 54% 57% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Less than 100 employees 100 to 500 employees 500 to 2000 employees 2000+ employees Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
  • 14. Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Company Size 52% 63% 75% 71% 33% 41% 56% 45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Less than 100 employees 100 to 500 employees 500 to 2000 employees 2000+ employees Uses Tool-Based Code Review Uses Tool-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
  • 15. Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Dev Team Size 67% 81% 76% 81% 27% 51% 50% 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Less than 5 people 5 to 20 people 20 to 50 people More than 50 people Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Daily/Weekly
  • 16. Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Dev Team Size 44% 51% 61% 68% 8% 16% 28% 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Less than 5 people 5 to 20 people 20 to 50 people More than 50 people Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
  • 17. Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Dev Team Size 48% 66% 80% 81% 27% 44% 59% 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Less than 5 people 5 to 20 people 20 to 50 people More than 50 people Uses Tool-Based Code Review Uses Tool-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
  • 18. Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Team Distribution 73% 78% 78% 46% 41% 47% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% One location Two or more locations or countries Multiple sites, but team is colocated Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Daily/Weekly
  • 19. Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Team Distribution 52% 53% 54% 16% 20% 14% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% One location Two or more locations/countries Multiple sites, but team is colocated Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Use Meeting-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
  • 20. Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Team Distribution 51% 70% 65% 28% 49% 44% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% One location Two or more locations/countries Multiple sites, but team is colocated Uses Tool-Based Code Review Use Tool-Based Code Review Daily/Weekly
  • 21. % of Ad-Hoc Code Review Adoption by Level of Satisfaction of Software Quality 76% 24% Satisfied 74% 26% Dissatisfied/Neutral Uses Ad-Hoc Code Review Does Not Use Ad-Hoc Code Review
  • 22. % of Meeting-Based Code Review Adoption by Level of Satisfaction of Software Quality 56% 44% Satisfied 44% 56% Dissatisfied/Neutral Uses Meeting-Based Code Review Does Not Use Meeting-Based Code…
  • 23. % of Tool-Based Code Review Adoption by Level of Satisfaction of Software Quality 67% 33% Satisfied 56% 44% Dissatisfied/Neutral Uses Tool-Based Code Review Does Not Use Tool-Based Code Review
  • 24. Do You Have A Preferred Source Control System? 0% 10% 20% 30% 27% 26% 15% 10% 9% 4% 4% 5% % Responded
  • 25. Contents About the survey Why does code review matter Current state of code review –Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported –By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution Obstacles to reviews –Code review in general, tool-supported Conclusion & recommendations
  • 26. What Obstacles Prevent You From Doing Any Type of Code Review 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Workload Deadline/Time Constraints Lack of Manpower Reviews are too Time- Consuming Location of Team Members Reviews are Tedious/Repetitive 63% 46% 34% 25% 18% 15% % Responded
  • 27. What Obstacles Prevent You From Doing Tool-Based Type of Code Review 38% 36% 30% 26% 17% 14% 14% 9% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Workload Lack of Budget Deadline/Time Constraints Lack of Managerial Buy-In Lack of Manpower SCM Integration Reviews are too Time-Consuming Reviews are Tedious/Repetitive Location of Team Members % Responded
  • 28. I Often Find It Challenging to Collaborate with Team Members on Large Projects 6% 29% 27% 34% 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neither Disagree Nor Agree 4 - Agree 5 - Strongly Agree % Responded
  • 29. Satisfaction with Quality is Linked with How Challenging it is to Collaborate with Team Members 65% 35% Satisfied 50% 50% Dissatisfied/Neutral Not Challenging/Neutral Challenging
  • 30. My Company Is Able to Get Releases Out On Time Regularly 1% 15% 18% 51% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neither Disagree Nor Agree 4 - Agree 5 - Strongly Agree % Responded
  • 31. I am Satisfied with the Overall Quality of the Software I Help Produce 1% 11% 13% 61% 15% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neither Disagree Nor Agree 4 - Agree 5 - Strongly Agree % Responded
  • 32. Contents About the survey Why does code review matter Current state of code review –Ad-hoc, meeting-based, tool-supported –By industry, company size, dev team size & team distribution Obstacles to reviews –Code review in general, tool-supported Conclusion & recommendations
  • 33. Developers and Testers, Managers and End-Users Agree on the Importance of Tool-Based Code Review 66% 53% 65% 63% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Development Testing Manager End-User Implementing a Code Review Tool Is An Important Priority
  • 34. Conclusion and recommendations Code quality matters –Frequent releases, time to market, satisfied customers Companies in many industries do code review –Ad-hoc reviews are more popular than meeting-based •75% ad hoc reviews, 50% meeting-based reviews, 60% tool-based reviews –Perceived to improve quality Obstacles to effectiveness –Workload and deadlines = planning (as ever) Tool-based reviews –Use more regularly –Use tools to support reviews – best of both worlds