Code review is one of the primary means of assuring the quality of released software along with testing and static analysis. However, code review requires experienced developers who may not always have the time to perform an in-depth review of code. Thus, automating code review can help alleviate the cognitive burden on experienced software developers allowing them to focus on their primary activities of writing code to add new features and fix bugs. In this paper, we describe our experience in using Large Language Models towards automating the code review process in Ericsson. We describe the development of a lightweight tool using LLMs and static program analysis. We then describe our preliminary experiments with experienced developers in evaluating our code review tool and the encouraging results.

This paper presents our findings on the automatic summarization of Java methods within Ericsson, a global telecommunications company. We evaluate the performance of an approach called Automatic Semantic Augmentation of Prompts (ASAP), which uses a Large Language Model (LLM) to generate leading summary comments (Javadocs) for Java methods. ASAP enhances the LLM's prompt context by integrating static program analysis and information retrieval techniques to identify similar exemplar methods along with their developer-written Javadocs, and serves as the baseline in our study. In contrast, we explore and compare the performance of four simpler approaches that do not require static program analysis, information retrieval, or the presence of exemplars as in the ASAP method. Our methods rely solely on the Java method body as input, making them lightweight and more suitable for rapid deployment in commercial software development environments. We conducted experiments on an Ericsson software project and replicated the study using two widely-used open-source Java projects, Guava and Elasticsearch, to ensure the reliability of our results. Performance was measured across eight metrics that capture various aspects of similarity. Notably, one of our simpler approaches performed as well as or better than the ASAP method on both the Ericsson project and the open-source projects. Additionally, we performed an ablation study to examine the impact of method names on Javadoc summary generation across our four proposed approaches and the ASAP method. By masking the method names and observing the generated summaries, we found that our approaches were statistically significantly less influenced by the absence of method names compared to the baseline. This suggests that our methods are more robust to variations in method names and may derive summaries more comprehensively from the method body than the ASAP approach.