Re: [Firebird-test] WBT: Code Audit

[John B. <bel...@cs...>]

Hi,

On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, at 04:04 AM, Pavel Cisar wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Code audit is just a form of Peer Review.[...]
>
> 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 ?

Not exactly.  I think we don't have the resources to do a full "stop 
everything" code review.  We should do them incrementally as the various 
engine subsystems are examined in detail.  For example, I just spent a 
fair amount of time in the intl module and could have done a review then 
without too much additional burden.

>
>
> 2) If yes, what should be the primary purpose: code correctness or
> documentation ?

Right now, documentation.  I would like to see deoxygen become a 
standard part of the FB build process, and engine internal information 
placed in deoxygen comments in the code.  Once we have determined how 
the code is functioning now we can talk about how it is supposed to 
function.  That will help us identify bugs.  For the time being the only 
bugs we can really catch (in most subsystems) are small typos.

>
> 3) What do you think / recommend re. Code audit ?

get deoxygen involved and stress the importance of adding internal 
documentation.

-John