Understanding Practitioners' Expectations on Clear Code Review Comments
Junkai Chen, Zhenhao Li, Qiheng Mao, Xing Hu, Kui Liu, Xin Xia

TL;DR
This study investigates the clarity of code review comments, identifies key attributes affecting clarity, and proposes an automated tool, ClearCRC, which effectively evaluates CRC clarity using machine learning models.
Contribution
The paper introduces a set of clarity attributes for CRCs, conducts an empirical analysis across multiple languages, and develops an automated evaluation tool with promising accuracy.
Findings
28.8% of CRCs lack clarity in at least one attribute
ClearCRC achieves up to 73.04% balanced accuracy
F-1 score of up to 94.61% for clarity evaluation
Abstract
The code review comment (CRC) is pivotal in the process of modern code review. It provides reviewers with the opportunity to identify potential bugs, offer constructive feedback, and suggest improvements. Clear and concise code review comments (CRCs) facilitate the communication between developers and are crucial to the correct understanding of the identified issues and proposed solutions. Despite the importance of CRCs' clarity, there is still a lack of guidelines on what constitutes a good clarity and how to evaluate it. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive study on understanding and evaluating the clarity of CRCs. We first derive a set of attributes related to the clarity of CRCs, namely RIE attributes (i.e., Relevance, Informativeness, and Expression), as well as their corresponding evaluation criteria based on our literature review and survey with practitioners. We then…
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsArtificial Intelligence in Law · Legal Education and Practice Innovations
