Popular modern code review tools (e.g., Gerrit and GitHub) sort files in a code review in alphabetical order. A prior study (on open-source projects) shows that the changed files’ positions in the code review affect the review process. Their results show that files placed lower in the order have less chance of receiving reviewing efforts than the other files. Hence, there is a higher chance of missing defects in these files. This paper explores the impact of file order in the code review of the well-known industrial project IntelliJ IDEA. First, we verify the results of the prior study on a big proprietary software project. Then, we explore an alternative to the default Alphabetical order: ordering changed files according to their code diff. Our results confirm the observations of the previous study. We discover that reviewers leave more comments on the files shown higher in the code review. Moreover, these results show that, even with the data skewed toward Alphabetical order, ordering changed files according to their code diff performs better than standard Alphabetical order regarding placing problematic files, which needs more reviewing effort, in the code review. These results confirm that exploring various ordering strategies for code review needs more exploration.

In this work, we propose an approach for collecting completion usage logs from the users in an IDE and using them to train a machine learning based model for ranking completion candidates. We developed a set of features that describe completion candidates and their context, and deployed their anonymized collection in the Early Access Program of IntelliJ-based IDEs. We used the logs to collect a dataset of code completions from users, and employed it to train a ranking CatBoost model. Then, we evaluated it in two settings: on a held-out set of the collected completions and in a separate A/B test on two different groups of users in the IDE. Our evaluation shows that using a simple ranking model trained on the past user behavior logs significantly improved code completion experience. Compared to the default heuristics-based ranking, our model demonstrated a decrease in the number of typing actions necessary to perform the completion in the IDE from 2.073 to 1.832.