Talk:Automated code review

Rename or merge

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

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)

You are wrong as code reviews review the code and make any possible changes. 62.253.31.10 (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Rename or merge summary

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:

• Moved few words from Code reviewing software to Automated code review. The Code reviewing software article can now me emptied and redirected to Automated code review imo. I will check admin User:HelloAnnyong how to best proceed here.
• Moved all tool infos refering to WIKI pages from Automated code review to List of tools for static code analysis, for duplicate entries I merged/mixed such entries, to save the best of both. Some tools from the Automated code review article, that did only hold external links, and did not have WIKI articles, I for now moved to here Talk:Automated code review
• Finally, one thing to note is that Perl::Critic gets redirected to Automated code review#Perl . It seems to be more appropriate to redirect that Perl::Critic page to one of the below (I will follow up with admin User:HelloAnnyong on how to best proceed here):
  • either List of tools for static code analysis
  • or Perl
• Some JSLint specific detail was moved to the JSLint article.
• Further issue to clarify with admin User:HelloAnnyong, is there a tool that tells one which pages refer to a certain other page, e.g. Code reviewing software or Automated code review.

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

Further changes:

• Code reviewing software now redirects to Automated code review
• Perl::Critic now redirects to List of tools for static code analysis

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

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

• Armorize CodeSecure — a tool that specializes on the security in web applications, supports JAVA, ASP.NET, Classic ASP, and PHP.
• Simian, proposed WIKI name Simian - Similarity Analyser (software)
  • http://www.redhillconsulting.com.au/products/simian/
  • Tool for detecting duplicate code sections in source files for languages like Java, C, C++, C# and much more.
  • Please also see Simian (disambiguation), for existing related WIKI names

JavaScript

• 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

• Pixy - Java program that performs automatic scans of PHP 4 source code, aimed at the detection of cross-site scripting (XSS) and SQL injection (SQLI) vulnerabilities. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixie_(disambiguation))

Python

• 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

• Project Analyzer - Home page

Perl

• 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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401051935/http://marketplace.eclipse.org:80/content/collaborative-code-review-tool to http://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/collaborative-code-review-tool

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

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

Merge into code review

I see merge has been brought up before, but it really feels like these couple of paragraphs would fit smoothly into Code review - thoughts? CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)