Early Prediction for Merged vs Abandoned Code Changes in Modern Code
  Reviews
  The modern code review process is an integral part of the current software
development practice. Considerable effort is given here to inspect code
changes, find defects, suggest an improvement, and address the suggestions of
the reviewers. In a code review process, usually, several iterations take place
where an author submits code changes and a reviewer gives feedback until is
happy to accept the change. In around 12% cases, the changes are abandoned,
eventually wasting all the efforts. In this research, our objective is to
design a tool that can predict whether a code change would be merged or
abandoned at an early stage to reduce the waste of efforts of all stakeholders
(e.g., program author, reviewer, project management, etc.) involved. The
real-world demand for such a tool was formally identified by a study by Fan et
al. [1]. We have mined 146,612 code changes from the code reviews of three
large and popular open-source software and trained and tested a suite of
supervised machine learning classifiers, both shallow and deep learning based.
We consider a total of 25 features in each code change during the training and
testing of the models. The best performing model named PredCR (Predicting Code
Review), a LightGBM-based classifier achieves around 85% AUC score on average
and relatively improves the state-of-the-art [1] by 14-23%. In our empirical
study on the 146,612 code changes from the three software projects, we find
that (1) The new features like reviewer dimensions that are introduced in
PredCR are the most informative. (2) Compared to the baseline, PredCR is more
effective towards reducing bias against new developers. (3) PredCR uses
historical data in the code review repository and as such the performance of
PredCR improves as a software system evolves with new and more data.
