持续审查

持续审查

 

摘自《Continuous Integration：Improving Software Quality and Reducing Risk》

 

Peer-based code reviews are generally considered beneficial to the overall quality of a code base because they present opportunities for an objective analysis by a second pair of eyes.

 

同行代码审查通常被认为是对代码的总体质量有益的，因为提供了客观分析的第二双眼睛。

 

 

人工审查 vs. 自动审查

The difference between human-based inspection and that done with a static analysis tool is twofold.

• These tools are incredibly cheap to run often（工具可以经常运行，成本很低）. They only require human intervention to configure and run once—after that, they are automated and provide a savings as compared to a person’s hourly rate.

• These tools harness the unflinching and unrelenting objectiveness of a computer（工具拥有计算机的无所畏惧和无情的客观性）. A computer won’t offer compromises like“Your code looks fine if you say mine looks fine,” and it won’t ask for bio-breaks and personal time if you run an automated inspection tool every time the version control repository changes.

 

 

中庸之道：

Automating code inspections with analysis tools handles 80% of the big picture and allows humans to intervene in the 20% that matters.

利用工具进行自动化的代码审查能解决80%的问题，让人来处理另外20%的重要问题。

 

For instance, Java’s PMD will run 180+ rules against a file every time it changes. If a particularly important rule is violated, such as a high cyclomatic complexity2 value, someone can take a look. Can you imagine trying to accomplish this targeting process manually? Why would anyone want to? The key to remember with automated code reviews is that they are not a replacement for manual ones—they are merely an enhancement for applying human intelligence where it’s most needed.