Browse Prior Art Database

Method for Preventing Code Review Related Merge Conflicts and Work Collisions

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000243422D
Publication Date: 2015-Sep-21
Document File: 3 page(s) / 122K

Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

Abstract

A method for preventing code review related merge conflicts and assignment collisions is disclosed.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 51% of the total text.

Page 01 of 3

Method for Preventing Code Review Related Merge Conflicts and Work Collisions

Disclosed is a method for preventing code review related merge conflicts and assignment collisions.

As software projects have grown in size and complexity, many efforts have been made to create generic software engineering infrastructure. The intent of creating the generic software engineering infrastructure is to ensure good quality and functionality in large projects and code bases. Despite recent efforts, efficiently creating flawless large-scale software projects remains a challenge, and more innovation in the process of software engineering is required for any team to get closer to this goal. Code reviews are often used to improve the process as a whole. Many software engineering organizations use a code review process to ensure that only good quality code gets merged into the main code base. There are many popular methods for conducting code reviews, but the review itself generally takes place in between completing a work item and merging it

with a master code repository. Depending on the organization, the code review process can often take several days, during which time it is possible that two developers have altered the same files or used a different approach that accomplishes the same task. Since the code is in review state and not in the official code repository, re-basing changes against the master repository before reviewing them still leaves the possibility that two similar changes are up for review that will cause organizational or merging problems later. Problems may be avoided by checking each new push to the review software for conflicts. The conflicts may be identified by comparing commit messages and changes similar to those of other current reviews. Also comparing changed files

that are currently in other reviews, the software engineers can avoid troublesome merge conflicts and other organizational mistakes. This approach facilitates an increase to efficiency for software engineers, management, and the organization as a

whole.

Figure 1 depicts an overview of a system which directly integrates into a code review process. The system supports receiving files pushed for review. The method begins

when...