#automatedcodereview

In a Manual Code Review (MCR), the source code is read line by line to check for possible vulnerabilities! This involves a lot of skills, experience, and patience! The issues or errors e discovered in this review, it will greatly help to increase the efficiency of the firm!

With an Automated Code Review (ACR), there is a set of predefined rules that are determined for the code to comply with! Software tools provide assistance in ACR that displays a list of warnings that are in violation of programming standards!

So how to decide which works best for you? Here’s a comparison that we thought would help you make this decision!

1)       Time:

•        MCR- Because the user reads every single line of the code, it is easy to gather the intentions of the developer! But even if that is the strength, it takes a lot of time to look and read these codes line by line!

•        ACR- No wonders it's fast! This automation software can read thousands of lines of code very swiftly. But these lack the skills of identifying the business logic and the intentions of the developer!

2)       Examination:

•        MCR- This method is very useful in crossing the rarely visited code paths! Few techniques such as penetration testing examine paths that have inputs fed, but lesser-traveled paths or hidden paths can be missed. But a rigorous MCR is better in identifying these paths that are misunderstood by automated tools

•        ACR- These intentionally hidden paths can also be easily explored by automation tools that are much more sophisticated but the ACR can miss the intentions behind these!

3)       Subtle mistakes:

•        MCR- Because the reviews are done by reviewers on an individual basis, it is very possible that the human eye can miss a few vulnerabilities that are related to integration or other isolated problem.

•        ACR- These mistakes and small errors that are missed in manual reviewing are easily caught by automated systems! However, this automation cannot go beyond a  particular limit of reviewing which can be done by MCR

4)       Costs:

•        MCR- Having trained and skilled engineers and to handle an efficient MCR comes attached to its obvious costs! It takes years of experience before a reviewer is able to adequately able to manage reviews

•        ACR- It isn’t necessary for reviewers to have the entire knowledge and skills of reviewing! The automation software is programmed to issue warnings of potential errors!

Both these methods of review have their own pros and cons! Codegrip guides you to choose the best practice for your business!

“It is not a mistake to make a mistake, but it is definitely a mistake to repeat a mistake”. With that said, code reviews are a great way to improve the quality of your code, but it has to be done precisely to exploit its full potential. So today we have compiled a list of some common code review mistakes that you have to look out for.

Common Code Review Mistakes

1) Hop off tests:

Go through all the tests that show up in the review. We are aware that going through all the tests can be very boring, but it is equally essential. The reason for this is that even if the first few tests show no issues, it will be very harmful to assume that the remaining are fine too! And major issues that are shown at a later stage in some tests can definitely go unnoticed.

2) Reviewing only newly added coded:

The code goes through various changes, if lines are deleted or not paid attention because they are old, you might just lose the concept of the old implementation method. Thus it is always advisable to read the code as a whole.

3) Rush:

The biggest reason for an inaccurate review; rushed reviews are very deadly in every way. Because of the pressures on the reviewers, they are bound to rush through the code lines without actually going through them! Fine and subtle mistakes are bound to be missed due to the demand for a quicker review. Automation can significantly reduce human error, but still, a rushed review is never a good choice.

4) Ignoring Design:

Many reviewers ignore the overall design and just focus on the functionality and workability of the code! But by doing this, they miss the role of the code in the whole system and how it fits into what is already there.

5) Unclear Comments:

Leaving unclear comments to the author for any changes needed is the most reviewers make. It is necessary to put in clear comments to create space for dialogue.