Editing Code review (section)

== Goal ==
Although direct discovery of quality problems is often the main goal,<ref name="baum2017profes">{{cite book |last1=Baum |first1=Tobias |title=Product-Focused Software Process Improvement |last2=Leßmann |first2=Hendrik |last3=Schneider |first3=Kurt |date=2017 |isbn=978-3-319-69925-7 |series=Lecture Notes in Computer Science |volume=10611 |pages=111–127 |chapter=The Choice of Code Review Process: A Survey on the State of the Practice |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_9}}</ref> code reviews are usually performed to reach a combination of goals:<ref name="bacchelli2013icse" /><ref name="baum2016fse">{{cite book |last1=Baum |first1=Tobias |title=Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering - FSE 2016 |last2=Liskin |first2=Olga |last3=Niklas |first3=Kai |last4=Schneider |first4=Kurt |date=2016 |isbn=9781450342186 |pages=85–96 |chapter=Factors Influencing Code Review Processes in Industry |doi=10.1145/2950290.2950323 |s2cid=15467294}}</ref>

* ''Improving code quality'' {{snd}}Improve internal code quality and [[maintainability]] through better readability, uniformity, and understandability
* ''Detecting [[Software bug|defects]]''{{snd}}Improve quality regarding external aspects, especially correctness, but also find issues such as performance problems, security vulnerabilities, and injected malware
* ''Learning/Knowledge transfer''{{snd}}Sharing codebase knowledge, solution approaches, and quality expectations, both to the reviewers and the author
* ''Increase sense of mutual responsibility''{{snd}}Increase a sense of collective [[code ownership]] and solidarity
* ''Finding better solutions''{{snd}}Generate ideas for new and better solutions and ideas beyond the specific code at hand
* ''Complying to QA guidelines, ISO/IEC standards''{{snd}}Code reviews are mandatory in some contexts, such as air traffic software and [[Safety-critical system|safety-critical]] software