Modern, complex software systems are being continuously extended and adjusted. The developers responsible for this may come from different teams or organizations, and may be distributed over the world. This may make it difficult to keep track of what other developers are doing, which may result in multiple developers concurrently editing the same code areas. This, in turn, may lead to hard-to-merge changes or even merge conflicts, logical bugs that are difficult to detect, duplication of work, and wasted developer productivity. To address this, we explore the extent of this problem in the pull-request-based software development model. We study half a year of changes made to six large repositories in Microsoft in which at least 1,000 pull requests are created each month. We find that files concurrently edited in different pull requests are more likely to introduce bugs. Motivated by these findings, we design, implement, and deploy a service named Concurrent Edit Detector (ConE) that proactively detects pull requests containing concurrent edits, to help mitigate the problems caused by them. ConE has been designed to scale, and to minimize false alarms while still flagging relevant concurrently edited files. Key concepts of ConE include the detection of the Extent of Overlap between pull requests, and the identification of Rarely Concurrently Edited Files. To evaluate ConE, we report on its operational deployment on 234 repositories inside Microsoft. ConE assessed 26,000 pull requests and made 775 recommendations about conflicting changes, which were rated as useful in over 70% (554) of the cases. From interviews with 48 users, we learned that they believed ConE would save time in conflict resolution and avoiding duplicate work, and that over 90% intend to keep using the service on a daily basis.

Selecting reviewers for code changes is a critical step for an efficient code review process. Recent studies propose automated reviewer recommendation algorithms to support developers in this task. However, the evaluation of recommendation algorithms, when done apart from their target systems and users (i.e., code review tools and change authors), leaves out important aspects: perception of recommendations, influence of recommendations on human choices, and their effect on user experience. This study is the first to evaluate a reviewer recommender in vivo. We compare historical reviewers and recommendations for over 21,000 code reviews performed with a deployed recommender in a company environment and set out to measure the influence of recommendations on users' choices, along with other performance metrics. Having found no evidence of influence, we turn to the users of the recommender. Through interviews and a survey we find that, though perceived as relevant, reviewer recommendations rarely provide additional value for the respondents. We confirm this finding with a larger study at another company. The confirmation of this finding brings up a case for more user-centric approaches to designing and evaluating the recommenders. Finally, we investigate information needs of developers during reviewer selection and discuss promising directions for the next generation of reviewer recommendation tools. Preprint: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1404814.

Code review is a common software engineering practice employed both in open source and industrial contexts. Review today is less formal and more 'lightweight' than the code inspections performed and studied in the 70s and 80s. We empirically explore the motivations, challenges, and outcomes of tool-based code reviews. We observed, interviewed, and surveyed developers and managers and manually classified hundreds of review comments across diverse teams at Microsoft. Our study reveals that while finding defects remains the main motivation for review, reviews are less about defects than expected and instead provide additional benefits such as knowledge transfer, increased team awareness, and creation of alternative solutions to problems. Moreover, we find that code and change understanding is the key aspect of code reviewing and that developers employ a wide range of mechanisms to meet their understanding needs, most of which are not met by current tools. We provide recommendations for practitioners and researchers.