Automated Code Review In Practice

TL;DR

This study evaluates the real-world impact of AI-assisted automated code review tools using large language models in industry, highlighting benefits in bug detection and code quality awareness, alongside challenges like increased review times and occasional inaccuracies.

Contribution

It provides an empirical analysis of LLM-based automated code review tools in an industrial setting, assessing their effects on developer workflows and code quality.

Findings

73.8% of automated comments were resolved

Automated reviews increased pull request closure times

Practitioners reported minor improvements in code quality

Abstract

Code review is a widespread practice to improve software quality and transfer knowledge. It is often seen as time-consuming due to the need for manual effort and potential delays. Several AI-assisted tools, such as Qodo, GitHub Copilot, and Coderabbit, provide automated reviews using large language models (LLMs). The effects of such tools in the industry are yet to be examined. This study examines the impact of LLM-based automated code review tools in an industrial setting. The study was conducted within a software development environment that adopted an AI-assisted review tool (based on open-source Qodo PR Agent). Around 238 practitioners across ten projects had access to the tool. We focused on three projects with 4,335 pull requests, 1,568 of which underwent automated reviews. Data collection comprised three sources: (1) a quantitative analysis of pull request data, including comment labels indicating whether developers acted on the automated comments, (2) surveys sent to developers regarding their experience with reviews on individual pull requests, and (3) a broader survey of 22 practitioners capturing their general opinions on automated reviews. 73.8% of automated comments were resolved. However, the average pull request closure duration increased from five hours 52 minutes to eight hours 20 minutes, with varying trends across projects. Most practitioners reported a minor improvement in code quality due to automated reviews. The LLM-based tool proved useful in software development, enhancing bug detection, increasing awareness of code quality, and promoting best practices. However, it also led to longer pull request closure times and introduced drawbacks like faulty reviews, unnecessary corrections, and irrelevant comments.