Talk:Automated code review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Rename or merge[edit]

As the article currently stands, it says almost nothing about Automated code review. Instead it's really a List of tools for automated code review but based on the definition at the top of the article, it's really a List of tools for static code analysis. We should either rename it to List of tools for automated code review or maybe better yet just merge and redirect it to List of tools for static code analysis unless we somehow have a different definition. Currently both pages seem to use the same definition. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

(the above is done/completed imo) Moved all tool descriptions pointing to a Wikipedia article to [[List of tools for static code analysis, other tools that just carried pointers to external websites were rescued to this talk page for now. Ptrb (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There are papers in academia describing automated code reviews and tools for this purpose. An option to consider is to research some of the literature to see if we can build a synopsis of the state of research in this area. One such reference can be found at this link. However, the topic of automated code review is tied closely to static analysis, so therefore it may warrant merging, but also to keep a description of automated code review in the merged article. Jabraham mw (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(copied the above to the below "Part 2" section. It is the only comment in this whole section, that has not yet been followed up on, and it seems to make sense.

Another option to consider is to move the list of static analysis tools from the Automated code review page to List of tools for static code analysis and restrict the Automated code review article page to descriptions of automated code review processes. Jabraham mw (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(the above is done/completed imo) Moved all tool descriptions pointing to a Wikipedia article to [[List of tools for static code analysis, other tools that just carried pointers to external websites were rescued to this talk page for now. Ptrb (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also another article titled Code reviewing software that overlaps with the content on this page. Jabraham mw (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

(the above is done/completed imo) Just checked this (again), the Code reviewing software article is currently pointing to this Automated code review article. Ptrb (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename or merge - Part 2[edit]

There are papers in academia describing automated code reviews and tools for this purpose. An option to consider is to research some of the literature to see if we can build a synopsis of the state of research in this area. One such reference can be found at this link. However, the topic of automated code review is tied closely to static analysis, so therefore it may warrant merging, but also to keep a description of automated code review in the merged article. Jabraham mw (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been browsing/reading back-and-forth, between these Automated code review, Static code analysis and Program analysis (computer science) articles. They have all similar but different scope, I've decided not to put merge-tags on any of these. Ptrb (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The merge-tags pointing to/from Automated code review and List of tools for static code analysis, do not seem necessary anymore, I will remove them now. If any merge-tags should be needed, then please see my comment just before this. Ptrb (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rename or merge summary[edit]

I have done quite some merging on the following articles, the whole operation is not yet complete. Here's a summary of what I did:

Ptrb (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Further changes:

Ptrb (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Are there any further merge-related changes planned? Ipsign (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I have currently no plans to do further merge here. I will likely come back to this and the List of tools for static code analysis pages, to see if tools "rescued" below, already have articles that may be added to List of tools for static code analysis. Some other things that I am currently looking-at/working-on, can be found here User_talk:Ptrb#Things_to_work_on. Ptrb (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying it; maybe then it's a good idea to remove {mergeto}/{mergefrom} templates from relevant pages? I don't have opinion on merge, but I might want to add a thing or two, and to do it, it is necessary to know if the merge is planned. Ipsign (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, see my comments here Talk:Automated_code_review#Rename_or_merge_-_Part_2. It is all based on my personal judgement, I cant guarantee that other contributers have the same oppinion. Maybe tomorrow someone puts the {mergeto}/{mergefrom} templates back again. Good luck. Ptrb (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Rescued/saved information which was only using external http links[edit]

Below entries links do not meet the Wikipedia criteria, stating that all provided/linked content, must be Wikipedia content. Below entries were removed from the Automated code review and List of tools for static code analysis for later/further analysis/processing. See also the discussions here User_talk:Ptrb#Your_additions_to_List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis and here User_talk:HelloAnnyong#Comment_re_change_by_Ptrb.

Ptrb (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Multi-language[edit]

JavaScript[edit]

  • Javascript Lint is an analyzer that can check JavaScript syntax and also examine the coding techniques used in the script and warn against questionable practices. Online version is also available.

PHP[edit]

Python[edit]

  • PEP8 - the original code analyzer from Python.
  • Pylint - analyzes Python source code looking for bugs and signs of poor quality.
  • PyChecker - is a tool for finding bugs in Python source code.

Visual Basic[edit]

Perl[edit]

  • Perl::Critic - Helps programmers ensure their perl code complies with common programming conventions. The project grew out of a desire to have an automated tool to help enforce the coding standards recommended by the Perl Best Practices book by Damian Conway. It has since been expanded to find violations of policies not found in the book. Perl::Critic is designed to allow users to add their own policies and/or to choose a subset of the provided policies. The Perl::Critic module was developed using the PPI tool to parse, analyze and manipulate Perl code.
  • B::Lint

Ptrb (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Automated code review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)