Patric, I believe exposing students to code review is a very important skill for their future careers. Code review/reading is a skill just like code authoring, it only improves through use and education. Currently computer science is heavily skewed towards the authoring side with little to no review.
Reviewboard is a very open system, any user can see any review which is posted. (At least in the 1.7.x line, I have yet to make the jump to 2.0). As such, you will need to decide how much you wish to restrict access to other reviews. Reviews are created by an author. If you wish to make the author anonymous then you will need to have all reviews posted by a single account. The reviewer would then be assigned. At that point the reviewer would get notifications (assuming you have email set). You would then need custom hooks on the server that forwards the review information back to the author. Reviewboard depends on their being a source control versioning system in place. What tool do you plan to use? Regards, Scott Q On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Patric Ljung <plj...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear RB users and experts, > > We are considering to use RB in our programming courses curriculum and I > am trying to get an understanding, or a gap analysis, of how well suited RB > would be. > > The intention is to make the students review each others code but not > being able to always peer-up with friends, so it should be anonymous and/or > random assignment of reviewers. Teachers should be able to inspect all > reviews and provide comments if they wish. Students should only be allowed > to see their own reviews. > > The intended workflow we'd like to achieve is outlined as follows: > > 1. Student submits his exercise code, preferably via customized script > using RBtools. This creates a new review and uploads the files to the RB > server. > 2. Student requests to review another students submitted code. The > student should be assigned a random, and/or possibly an anonymous, review > from the pool of available reviews. > 3. Once peer reviewers are completed the review is "sent" back to > original submitter who can address findings and comments. > 4. Once the student is done fixing issues he/she submits the new > version of files. > 5. Possibly the review could be iterated but most likely one round is > sufficient, the teachers could check a list of iterated reviews and decide > to complete them. > > What is required to do in order to use RB in such a workflow and setting? > Perhaps most could be done on the client side using curl and the RB REST > API? > > Any insights highly appreciated. > > Kind regards, > Patric > > -- > Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ > --- > Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ > --- > Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "reviewboard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Get the Review Board Power Pack at http://www.reviewboard.org/powerpack/ --- Sign up for Review Board hosting at RBCommons: https://rbcommons.com/ --- Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
