WhoDo: automating reviewer suggestions at scale

Abstract

Today's software development is distributed and involves continuous changes for new features and yet, their development cycle has to be fast and agile. An important component of enabling this agility is selecting the right reviewers for every code-change - the smallest unit of the development cycle. Modern tool-based code review is proven to be an effective way to achieve appropriate code review of software changes. However, the selection of reviewers in these code review systems is at best manual. As software and teams scale, this poses the challenge of selecting the right reviewers, which in turn determines software quality over time. While previous work has suggested automatic approaches to code reviewer recommendations, it has been limited to retrospective analysis. We not only deploy a reviewer suggestions algorithm - WhoDo - and evaluate its effect but also incorporate load balancing as part of it to address one of its major shortcomings: of recommending experienced developers very frequently. We evaluate the effect of this hybrid recommendation + load balancing system on five repositories within Microsoft. Our results are based around various aspects of a commit and how code review affects that. We attempt to quantitatively answer questions which are supposed to play a vital role in effective code review through our data and substantiate it through qualitative feedback of partner repositories.