APB-Code review

Code and Design Review

(Code review sessions - conduct and expectations)

Abstract:

This page explains conduct of and expectations for code and design reviews.

Objectives:
Code reviews are intended to ...

... improve everyone's familarity with the contents;
... practice critical analysis of the material;
... practice giving constructive feedback in a professional context;
... improve communication skills.

Deliverables:

Your participation as reviewers in the Code review sessions will be worth 10 marks in each panel for a total of 4 x 10 marks maximum.

Code reviews are done for course credit of the reviewers. The units are already going to have been marked by the instructor before the review. Critical reviews are not going to affect that mark, there is no need to be protective of your peers for that reason. The best way to help your peers is to provide a high-quality review, with creative, constructive feedback. A well-prepared, thoughtful, knowledgeable review will be immensely valuable for your peers. And since you as the reviewer will be evaluated for credit, I hope that you will put your heart into it.

Principles

Units are not to be modified, until after the code review. Do not edit, upload, commit, push, merge or otherwise modify any material you have submitted for credit until after the review is done.
We will use four weeks for reviews. We will schedule five to six reviews per class session, with four reviewers. This will give everyone approximately five minutes for their review contributions.
Everyone will review four units.
Typically everyone will participate in one review at every session, and never more than two.

Schedule

Date	Unit	Author	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 3	Reviewer 4
October 18	RPR-Data-Reshape/Split/Merge	Yuhan Zhang	Ricardo Ramnarine	Vicky Lu	Albert Cui	Kevin Lin
October 18	RPR-Data-Imputation	Gregory Huang	Xiao Wang	Walter Nelson	Yuqing Zou	Jenny Yin
October 18	EDA-MOD-Nonlinear	Denitsa Vasileva	Yuhan Zhang	Ian Shi	Alana Man	Farzan Taj
October 18	EDA-DR-MDS	Ricardo Ramnarine	Gregory Huang	Adriel Martinez	Marcus Chiam	Truman Wang
October 18	APB-ML-Features	Xiao Wang	Denitsa Vasileva	Zhifan Wu	Dominick Han	Hari Sharma

Date	Unit	Author	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 3	Reviewer 4
October 25	EDA-MOD-Linear	Vicky Lu	Yuqing Zou	Gregory Huang	Leon Xu	Yuhan Zhang
October 25	EDA-MOD-Generalized	Walter Nelson	Albert Cui	Ricardo Ramnarine	Truman Wang	Farzan Taj
October 25	EDA-MOD-Logistic	Ian Shi	Vicky Lu	Kevin Lin	Xiao Wang	Jenny Yin
October 25	EDA-MOD-Assessment	Adriel Martinez	Walter Nelson	Zhifan Wu	Denitsa Vasileva	Alana Man
October 25	APB-ML-Feature_importance	Yuqing Zou	Ian Shi	Marcus Chiam	Dominick Han	Hari Sharma
October 25	APB-ML-Measuring_performance	Albert Cui	Adriel Martinez	Gregory Huang	Leon Xu	Yuhan Zhang

Date	Unit	Author	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 3	Reviewer 4
November 1	EDA-Visualization	Zhifan Wu	Dominick Han	Denitsa Vasileva	Xiao Wang	Yuqing Zou
November 1	EDA-CLU-Density_based	Alana Man	Kevin Lin	Hari Sharma	Ian Shi	Vicky Lu
November 1	EDA-CLU-Distribution_based	Marcus Chiam	Zhifan Wu	Leon Xu	Truman Wang	Farzan Taj
November 1	EDA-CLU-Mutual_information	Dominick Han	Alana Man	Jenny Yin	Albert Cui	Adriel Martinez
November 1	EDA-Graph_data_mining	Kevin Lin	Marcus Chiam	Denitsa Vasileva	Ricardo Ramnarine	Walter Nelson

Date	Unit	Author	Reviewer 1	Reviewer 2	Reviewer 3	Reviewer 4
November 15	APB-ML-Deep_neural_networks	Jenny Yin	Hari Sharma	Yuqing Zou	Adriel Martinez	Dominick Han
November 15	APB-ML-h2o	Farzan Taj	Leon Xu	Walter Nelson	Marcus Chiam	Ricardo Ramnarine
November 15	APB-ML-RWeka	Truman Wang	Jenny Yin	Albert Cui	Zhifan Wu	Yuhan Zhang
November 15	APB-ML-Support_Vector_Machines	Hari Sharma	Farzan Taj	Gregory Huang	Alana Man	Kevin Lin
November 15	APB-ML-Random_forests	Leon Xu	Truman Wang	Ian Shi	Vicky Lu	Xiao Wang

Preparation

The entire class is expected to have worked through all learning units by the time of the first review, to become familiar with the context. This may be done relatively quickly.
The entire class is expected to have worked through the learning units that are scheduled for review in detail before a review session, so that everyone can follow the discussion.
The reviewers of a learning unit have worked through the material in detail, have made themselves knowledgeable about the context and background, and have prepared their review contributions (see below). I expect that reviewers will come to class very well prepared, and that they consider the unit with reference to the expectations set out in the [rubrics for learning units, and the general expectations for design, code and documentation].

During the review

Code will not be presented by the author (unfortunately we don't have enough time), but the reviewers may ask some initial questions for clarification. Other than that, familiartity with the unit is assumed.
Reviewers will comment on issues. Ideally, reviewers will make specific suggestions for improvement but it is better to point out a weakness, even if you don't quite know how to address it, than to remain silent. Once it is pointed out, others may have useful ideas. Of course, if you note particular strengths of the unit, that is also welcome.
Issues for discussion could include:
- Suggestions to make the objectives of the unit more clear.
- Suggestions how the unit could (realistically) contribute better to the course objectives.
- Improvements to integrating the unit with others (but without introducing unnecessary dependencies).
- Constructive critique of design decisions.
- Improvements to examples to better illustrate the concepts.
- Addressing any unstated assumptions.
- Identifying significant dependencies that could become obstacles to refactoring.
- Flagging, where the material lacks rigour or is factully incorrect.
- Improvements to form and layout.
- Identifying code that does not conform to coding style.
- Identifying code that exemplifies poor practice ("anti-patterns", design smell", "code smell").
- Improvements to comments (remember, this is teaching code, not production code);
- Flagging where the sample code might not be robust against faulty input.
- Flagging where the sample code might not be safe against overwriting user data.
- Suggestions how the tasks could be made more meaningful, or where additional tasks might be useful.
- Flagging where sample solutions are missing.
- Sample solutions need to support those leaners with the greatest difficulties with the material. Are the submitted solutions suitable for this purpose? Are they sufficiently commented? What can be improved?
- Any other issues ...
During the review, reviewers take notes of responses and comments.

Overall, be mindful that code review is a sensitive social issue, and that the primary objective is not to point out errors, but to improve the entire "team".

After the review

After the review, on the same day, the reviewers summarize their issues and proposals on the "Talk" page of the unit (briefly, in point form);
Once all suggestions are in, the unit author begins revisions.
It is not mandatory that the revisions follow the reviewers' suggestions. Authors need to consider comments carefully, but apply their own best judgement. In the end, the reviewers are responsible for their reviews, but the author is responsible for their unit.

A final note

I hope that in your career you will find yourself in a workplace where peer-review is a regular part of your activities. This may contribute tremendously to better outcomes, more transparent and more meaningful work, and more cohesive teams. When that time comes, your skills as reviewers will be evaluated implicitly, although perhaps neither you, your supervisor, nor your project lead might realize this. You will be prepared.

APB-Code review

Contents

Contents

Schedule

Preparation

During the review

After the review

A final note

Notes

Further reading, links and resources

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Sections

Tools