![mind mapping software review mind mapping software review](https://s3.amazonaws.com/xmindshare/preview/judicial-review-1-cishg-1265206467337.jpg)
This is fine, but don't confuse a walkthrough with a defect-focused review such as an inspection. Certain types of reviews, such as walkthroughs, may be intended for brainstorming, exploring design alternatives, and solving problems. One reason inspections are more effective than less formal reviews is that they have a moderator who controls the meeting, including detecting when problem-solving is taking place and bringing the discussion back on track. Solving problems is usually a distraction that siphons valuable time away from the focus on error detection. Solutions: The kind of reviews I'm discussing in this article have one primary purpose: to find defects in a software work product. Reviews should focus on finding defects, but too often an interesting defect triggers a spirited discussion about how it ought to be fixed. Unfortunately, this is not the behavior we want during a technical review. We enjoy nothing more than sinking our cerebrums into sticky technical challenges, exploring elegant solutions to thorny problems. Symptoms: Software developers are creative problem solvers by nature. Review Meetings Drift Into Problem-Solving 4.1. Make sure the reviewers receive the materials to be reviewed at least two or three days prior to the scheduled review meeting. If the moderator judges the preparation time to be inadequate (say, less than half the planned meeting time), she should reschedule the meeting. This is why the moderator in an inspection begins the meeting by collecting the preparation times from all participants. Solutions: Since about 75% of the defects found during inspections are located during individual preparation, the review's effectiveness is badly hampered by inadequate preparation prior to the meeting. Other symptoms of inadequate preparation are that the work product copies brought to the meeting aren't marked up with questions and comments, and some reviewers don't actively contribute to the discussion. If attendees at a review meeting are seeing the product for the first time, they may not understand the intent of the product or its assumptions, background, and context, let alone be able to spot subtle errors.
Mind mapping software review code#
Symptoms: You come into work at 7:45AM and find a stack of paper on your chair with a note attached: "We're reviewing this code at 8:00AM in conference room B." There's no way you can properly examine the work product and associated materials in 15 minutes. Practice using the passive voice: "I don't see where these variables were initialized, "not "You forgot to initialize these variables" 3. Try directing your comments and criticisms to the product itself, rather than pointing out places the author made an error. A review is not an opportunity for a reviewer to show how much smarter he is than the author, but rather a way to use the collective wisdom, insights, and experience of a group of peers to improve the quality of the group's products. Solutions: When helping your team begin reviews, emphasize that the correct battle lines pit the author and his peers against the defects in the work product. They may also look forward to reviewing the work of their antagonists as an opportunity for revenge. When authors feel personally attacked by other review participants, they will be reluctant to submit their future products for review. Not surprisingly, this makes the author feel beaten down, defensive, and resistant to legitimate suggestions that are raised or defects that are found. A confrontational style of raising issues exacerbates the problem. Symptoms: Initial attempts to hold reviews sometimes lead to personal assaults on the skills and style of the author. Reviewers Critique the Producer, Not the Product 2.1. Training can be an excellent team-building activity, as all members of the group hear the same story on some technical topic and begin with a shared understanding and vocabulary. For most teams, four to eight hours of training will be sufficient, though you wish to obtain additional specialized training for those who will play the role of moderator in formal inspections.
![mind mapping software review mind mapping software review](https://www.acethinker.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/gitmind-interface.jpg)
Solutions: Training is the best way to ensure that your team members share a common understanding of the review process. Team members may not know which of their software work products should be reviewed, when to review them, and what review approach is most appropriate in each situation.
![mind mapping software review mind mapping software review](https://analyticsinsight.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/analyticsinsight-2-1.png)
Review participants may have different understandings of their roles and responsibilities, and of the activities conducted during a review.
Mind mapping software review how to#
Symptoms: Software engineers don't instinctively know how to conduct and contribute to software reviews. Participants Don't Understand the Review Process 1.1. Seven Deadly Sins of Software Reviews by Oana Molcut 1.