The effects of change decomposition on code review -- a controlled experiment
Marco di Biase, Magiel Bruntink, Arie van Deursen, Alberto Bacchelli

TL;DR
This study quantitatively evaluates how decomposing code changes into smaller, coherent parts affects the efficiency and approach of code review, showing it reduces errors and aids reviewer focus without affecting defect detection.
Contribution
It provides the first quantitative evidence that change decomposition improves review quality and reviewer behavior, supporting best practices in software engineering.
Findings
Fewer wrongly reported issues with decomposed changes
Increased context-seeking behavior during review
No significant difference in defect detection or understanding
Abstract
Background: Code review is a cognitively demanding and time-consuming process. Previous qualitative studies hinted at how decomposing change sets into multiple yet internally coherent ones would improve the reviewing process. So far, literature provided no quantitative analysis of this hypothesis. Aims: (1) Quantitatively measure the effects of change decomposition on the outcome of code review (in terms of number of found defects, wrongly reported issues, suggested improvements, time, and understanding); (2) Qualitatively analyze how subjects approach the review and navigate the code, building knowledge and addressing existing issues, in large vs. decomposed changes. Method: Controlled experiment using the pull-based development model involving 28 software developers among professionals and graduate students. Results: Change decomposition leads to fewer wrongly reported issues,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
