Hi all,
Code audit is just a form of Peer Review. But while peer review as
described in separate message address only code changes and small parts
of codebase that's being work on, Code audit extends the peer review to
the whole codebase.
Pro's and Con's:
This technique is not used regularly (except for critical systems)
because is very expensive in terms of human labour and required
knowledge. But we're in unusual situation, because we inherited aprox.
35MB of source code, where most of it was not touched by Firebird
developers. There are large portions of code that only few (if anyone at
all) knows in detail, and this knowledge is mostly a by-product of
learning, so these developers read it to just decipher what's it supposed
to do, not to check it's correctness. Of course, some bugs were found
that way (like famous politically correct security hole), but it's mostly
an exception. So, with Code audit we can:
1) Learn more about engine internals, and DOCUMENT IT !!! The famous
secret "Interbase internals" document is a little bit outdated and not
complete. It's a nice opportunity to finish it.
2) We may find some bugs
3) Identify potential flaws in design (at least optimizer come to mind
here)
Implementation:
Every source file in _Firebird2_ module (29MB) would be reviewed. It
would be nice if these files would be also _documented_. That mean both,
in-line comments and separate FB internals document, where major data
structures and subsystems would be documented, including their mutual
relations.
Current status:
This technique was not used (at all AFAIK), except as a by-product of
learning.
Questions for you:
1) Do you think that we should do Code review as is explained here ?
2) If yes, what should be the primary purpose: code correctness or
documentation ?
3) What do you think / recommend re. Code audit ?
Your comments would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards
Pavel Cisar
http://www.ibphoenix.com
For all your upto date Firebird and
InterBase information
|
