A few days, I gave an invited lecture on code review here at UC Davis. The class was the ECS capstone class, consisting of about 100 CS majors who were all working on some form of group project - all but a few were doing something with programming. I was told the class had little to no experience with code review, but did know C++ rather well.
Since I only had two hours AND I really hate lectures, I really wanted to do something that was somewhat hands on, but didn't involve programming or computer use. Asking my Twitter network, I got a few links -- Azalee Boestrom has code review tutorial, and Maxime Boissonneault demoed exercism.io for me -- but neither fit what I had in mind.
The big thing was this: somewhere during my thought process, I realized that I wanted to show the students the basic connection between code review, testing, and refactoring. How do you show all of that to people who might have never done any of that?
I ended up with the plan that follows. It went better than expected!
In preparation for class, I extracted some code from our khmer package -- specifically, the KmerIterator code that takes a string of DNA and produces a succession of hashed values from it -- and defactored it into a horrid function. You can see the result here. I also built a simple Makefile.
In class, I started by asking the class what they thought the purpose of code review was, and polled them on it via a free-text entry Google Form. This led to a discussion about maintainability vs correctness, and my point that you couldn't approach the latter over a long period of time without the former.
Then, I moved on to the code:
First, I ran through the purpose of the (ugly) code with lots of hand-waving.
Then, I asked the question: how do we know if the code works?
To answer that, I live-coded a very simple version of the function that was slow, but so simple that you could guarantee it worked -- see it here. I saved the output from this "presumed-good" version, and compared it to the output of the ugly version and showed that it matched.
For good measure, I also automated that as a smoke test, so that with a simple 'make test' we could check to see if our latest code changes produced presumed-good output.
Now I had code that probably worked.
Second, I polled the class (with a free-text entry approach using Google Forms) for their thoughts on what the code needed. Remember, it's ugly!
I went through the resulting comments, and pulled out a few suggestions.
One was "write down in detail what the biology background is." I explained that you probably didn't want that kind of comment in the code -- generally, anyone working on this code should already be somewhat versed in the biology.
Another suggestion was "Comment the code." So I started putting in comments like "set this variable to 0", which led to a discussion of how too many comments could be silly and what we really wanted was important comments. Here, I brought in my confession that I'd spent 15 minutes trying to understand why i started at k, so we commented that plus a few other things.
Third, I was running a bit low on time, so I took a previous suggestion and refactored the code by making longer, better variable names. Here, I could show that the code not only compiled but passed tests on the first try (hence the commit comment).
Finally, I took the suggestion of one astute observer and split up my now too-long function by building it into a class. The result looks reasonably similar to the actual code in khmer, which I pointed out; even better, it passed my smoke test (hence the commit comment). I got applause!
We closed with some discussion about where to look for more information, and how to think about this stuff. I showed them some live examples, and referred them to David Soergel's paper, Rampant software errors may undermine scientific results as an entry point into some literature on error rates; I also showed them Python coverage output and our code review guidelines for the khmer project.
All in all, I managed to hold their attention (by live coding, by cracking jokes, and by being energetic). (I only got one negative comment about the jokes! :).
I think I demonstrated about 80% of what I wanted to show, and filled up the two hours nicely. I can do a better job next time, of course, and if I get invited back I'll try to provide a better outline of points to make and references; I winged it too much this time and so it's not a re-usable approach yet, I think.