代码大全学习-24-合作开发(Collaborative Construction)

这一章介绍了合作开发的一些常用方法。所有的合作开发都基于这样一个前提，即任何开发人员都有自己的盲点，大家的盲点不一样，所以合作起来就可以减少盲点，也就减少了开发缺陷出现的几率。合作开发的方法有很多，结对编程，正式审查(Formal Inspections)，非正式审阅，读代码，读文档，几个人讨论等等，形式多样，不必拘泥。作者在书中重点讲了前面两种。

结对编程相信大家就算没用过也至少有所耳闻。方法很简单，两个人一组，一个写代码，一个在旁边看。看不是简单的看看就完了，要主动分析代码有没有写错，功能是否正确，是不是我们想要的代码，设计对不对，接下来要写什么，怎么测试等等。两个人可以轮流着写和看。这种方法可以提高代码的质量，因为写的时候有人看，会尽量写好，出错了也会有人及时指出。所以总体来说会减少缺陷出现的几率，从而提高效率。当然凡事没有绝对，也不是所有的情形都要用结对编程，有些很简单或者很复杂的情况可以考虑其他的方法。这里附上一个checklist可以在运用这种方法的时候参考。

Checklist: Effective Pair Programming

• Do you have a coding standard to support pair programming that's focused on programming rather than on philosophical coding-style discussions?
• Are both partners participating actively?
• Are you avoiding pair programming everything, instead selecting the assignments that will really benefit from pair programming?
• Are you rotating pair assignments and work assignments regularly?
• Are the pairs well matched in terms of pace and personality?
• Is there a team leader to act as the focal point for management and other people outside the project?

正式审查在发现缺陷上是比测试更经济的一种方法，在IBM使用多年，后来公开出来。其目的主要是发现缺陷，而不是改正缺陷。它是由开发人员来做的，而不是测试人员。其步骤比较多，大体上有计划准备，开审查会议，出审查报告，后期追踪几个部分。过程中会把参与的人赋予各个角色，协调员，作者，审查人，记录人等。需要注意的一点是这应该是一个纯技术的探讨，不要把老板扯进来，也不要根据审查结果来算绩效。具体方法还是参考原书吧，这里附上一个checklist供参考。

Checklist: Effective Inspections

• Do you have checklists that focus reviewer attention on areas that have been problems in the past?
• Is the emphasis on defect detection rather than correction?
• Are inspectors given enough time to prepare before the inspection meeting, and is each one prepared?
• Does each participant have a distinct role to play?
• Does the meeting move at a productive rate?
• Is the meeting limited to two hours?
• Has the moderator received specific training in conducting inspections?
• Is data about error types collected at each inspection so that you can tailor future checklists to your organization?
• Is data about preparation and inspection rates collected so that you can optimize future preparation and inspections?
• Are the action items assigned at each inspection followed up, either personally by the moderator or with a re-inspection?
• Does management understand that it should not attend inspection meetings?