JP4868754B2 - Review support program - Google Patents

Description

The present invention relates to a review support program , and more particularly to a review support program that supports review of information executed in a computer.

  As an example where the approver reviews the information input by the creator, for example, there is a source review (hereinafter referred to as a review) in which a reviewer reviews source code (hereinafter referred to as a source) input by a programmer. Review is the work that a reviewer reviews the source at the stage of coding by a programmer.

In recent years, such a source review is performed using a review support program executed on a computer. For example, Patent Document 1 describes contents for supporting a review by displaying a source in a form that clearly indicates a portion to be reviewed. Reviewing the source is effective because it improves the program quality during unit testing in the program development process and does not generate extra work during integration testing.
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 11-134188

  However, the review of the source was not thoroughly implemented because the reviewer selection was cumbersome or busy. If the source is not reviewed, the program quality during unit testing in the program development process is not ensured, and there is a problem that extra work occurs after the integration test.

The present invention has been made in view of the above points, and an object of the present invention is to provide a review support program capable of thoroughly implementing a review.

In order to solve the above problems, the present invention monitors whether or not information that needs to be reviewed by an approver reaches a predetermined condition and is stored in the storage unit based on the input of the creator. When the information reaches a predetermined condition, the approver who reviews the information according to the past error rate of the creator is selected, the selected review is set in the information, and the approver selected by the selected approver It is a review support program that causes a computer to execute a process that prohibits editing of the information until the review setting is canceled by the review process on the information stored in the storage unit.

In the present invention, when information that is input by the creator and requires review by the approver reaches a predetermined condition, editing of the information by the creator is prohibited. In other words, the creator cannot edit the information, and cannot create the information. For example, if the information is again allowed to be edited when the review by the approver is completed, the review can be performed quickly and reliably.

As described above, according to the present invention, it is possible to provide a review support program capable of thoroughly implementing a review.

  Next, the best mode for carrying out the present invention will be described based on the following embodiments with reference to the drawings. In this embodiment, an example in which a reviewer reviews a source input by a programmer will be described as an example in which an approver reviews information input by a creator. However, the present invention is not limited to reviewing a source. The present invention can be applied to various programs, devices, devices, and the like that support the work of an approver reviewing information input by a creator.

  FIG. 1 is a hardware configuration diagram of a computer that executes each step of the review support method of the present invention. The computer shown in FIG. 1 includes an input device 10, an output device 11, a drive device 12, an auxiliary storage device 13, a memory device 14, an arithmetic processing device 15, and an interface device 16 that are mutually connected by a bus. The Various devices constituting the computer may be housed in a single housing or may be housed in a plurality of housings.

  The input device 10 includes input devices such as a keyboard, a mouse, and a tablet, and is used to input various operation instructions and information (data, source, etc.). The output device 11 includes output devices such as a display and a printer, and is used to output various windows and information necessary for operation. The interface device 16 is an interface for connecting to a network or the like, and includes, for example, a modem, a router, a LAN card, and the like.

  A review support program for causing a computer to execute each step of the review support method for controlling the computer is provided by a recording medium 17 such as a CD-ROM. The recording medium 17 on which the review support program is recorded is set in the drive device 12. The review support program is installed in the auxiliary storage device 13 from the recording medium 17 via the drive device 12.

  The recording medium 17 on which the review support program is recorded is a recording medium on which information is optically, electrically, or magnetically recorded, such as a CD-ROM, flexible disk, magneto-optical disk (MO), etc., or ROM, flash Various types of recording media such as a semiconductor memory that electrically records information, such as a memory, can be used.

  The review support program includes a program recorded on a recording medium of another computer connected via the interface device 16. The review support program recorded on the recording medium of another computer is downloaded via the interface device 16 and installed in the auxiliary storage device 13. The auxiliary storage device 13 stores the installed review support program and various files necessary for processing the review support program.

  The memory device 14 reads and stores the review support program from the auxiliary storage device 13 at the time of activation. The arithmetic processing unit 15 can realize part or all of the functions necessary for the source review according to the review support program stored in the memory device 14.

  The computer that executes the review support program may be used alone (so-called stand-alone) without being connected to the network, or may be connected to the network and used as shown in FIG. FIG. 2 is a configuration diagram of an embodiment of a system in which a computer that executes each step of the review support method is connected to a network and used.

  The system of FIG. 2 has a configuration in which a server device 20 that executes each step of the review support method and one or more clients 21a to 21n are connected via a predetermined network 23 such as the Internet or a LAN. Note that reference numeral 21 is simply used to indicate any client. In the system of FIG. 2, a programmer and a reviewer can operate different clients 21. When a computer that executes each step of the review support method is used in a stand-alone manner, a programmer and a reviewer operate the same computer.

  On the other hand, in the case of the system shown in FIG. 2, the programmer operates the programmer client 21 as necessary to connect to the server device 20 to create a source. The server device 20 provides the client 21 with various functions for creating a source when a programmer logs in.

  The reviewer operates the client 21 as necessary to connect to the server device 20 and performs a review. The server device 20 provides the client 21 with various functions for performing a review when the reviewer logs in.

  Hereinafter, an example in which a computer that executes a review support program is used in a stand-alone manner will be described, but the same applies to a case where a computer that executes each step of the review support method is connected to a network and used. The system of FIG. 2 is an example in which each step of the review support method is executed using a client / server system.

  The computer that executes each step of the review support method realizes various functions as shown in FIG. 3, for example. FIG. 3 is a functional diagram of an example of a computer that executes each step of the review support method. The computer that executes each step of the review support method includes an authentication function 31, a source management function 32, a table management function 33, a coding function 34, a review function 35, a source management DB 36, a miss category table 37, a miss discovery category table 38, and a miss. This is a configuration having a statistical information table 39. The operation of the various functions shown in FIG. 3 will be described later.

  FIG. 4 is an overall flowchart showing an example of a processing procedure of a computer that executes each step of the review support method. In step S <b> 1, the source management function 32 reads the source stored in the source management DB 36 and displays the source management screen 100 as shown in FIG. 5 on the output device 11.

  FIG. 5 is an image diagram of an example of a source management screen. In the source management screen 100, for example, a file list of sources managed by one project is displayed on the left portion 101 of the screen, and the contents of the source selected in the file list are displayed on the right portion 102 of the screen. The programmer and the reviewer select the source to be coded or reviewed from the file list in the left part 101 of the screen, for example, by right clicking.

  In step S2, the source management function 32 determines whether or not a source included in the file list in the left portion 101 of the screen has been right-clicked. If the source included in the file list in the left portion 101 of the screen is not right-clicked (NO in S2), the source management function 32 repeats the processes in steps S1 and S2. If the source included in the file list in the left portion 101 of the screen is right-clicked (YES in S2), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S3 and displays the right-click menu screen 103 as shown in FIG. .

  FIG. 6 is an image diagram of an example of a right-click menu screen. On the right-click menu screen 103, the programmer or reviewer can specify the coding or review of the source selected from the file list in the left portion 101 of the screen.

  In step S 4, the source management function 32 determines whether or not coding is designated from the right-click menu screen 103. If it is determined that coding is designated (YES in S4), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S5, performs coding processing described later, and then returns to step S1.

  On the other hand, if it is determined that coding is not specified (NO in S4), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S6 and determines whether or not a review is specified from the right-click menu screen 103. If it is determined that a review is designated (YES in S6), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S7, performs a review process described later, and then returns to step S1.

  On the other hand, if it is determined that the review is not designated (NO in S6), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S8 and determines whether or not the review is finished. If it is determined that the processing is not finished (NO in S8), the source management function 32 returns to step S1. If it is determined that the processing is finished (YES in S8), the source management function 32 finishes the overall flowchart shown in FIG.

  Next, the coding process in step S5 will be described. FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing the procedure of the coding process. In step S11, the source management function 32 determines whether the source selected from the file list has been set for review. If it is determined that the review setting has not been completed (NO in S11), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S12 and performs the checkout process shown in FIG.

  FIG. 8 is a flowchart showing the procedure of the checkout process. In step S31, the source management function 32 acquires the target source from the source management DB 36. In step S32, the source management function 32 determines whether or not the source acquired in step S31 cannot be edited simultaneously. If it is determined that simultaneous editing is not possible (YES in S32), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S33 and determines whether or not the source acquired in step S31 is locked. Here, the state in which the source is locked represents a state in which the source is assigned to another programmer when the source allows only one person to edit.

  If it is determined that it is not locked (NO in S33), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S34 and locks the source acquired in step S31. Then, the source management function 32 proceeds to step S36. Even when it is determined that simultaneous editing is not possible (NO in S32), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S36. Here, a source that is not simultaneously editable means a source that allows collaborative editing of a plurality of people.

  In step S36, the source management function 32 stores the user ID and the fact that it is in use in the source management DB 36, thereby allocating the source to the current programmer. If it is determined that the source is locked (YES in S33), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S35 and displays a warning on the output device 11 that the source acquired in step S31 is in use. Then, the source management function 32 returns to step S1 in FIG.

  When the source acquired in step S31 is assigned, the source management function 32 proceeds to step S13 in FIG. 7 and instructs the coating function 34 to start processing. The coding function 34 displays a coding screen 110 as shown in FIG. 9 on the output device 11.

  FIG. 9 is an image diagram of an example of a coding screen. The coding screen 110 is filled with a review wait color (for example, yellow) so that lines that have not been reviewed among the lines input by the programmer can be viewed. In the coding screen 110 of FIG. 9, a portion painted with the review wait color is surrounded by a dotted line. Note that, in the actual coding screen 110, the review wait color is painted over the character background, so that characters can be viewed.

  The coding function 34 accepts input from the programmer to the coding screen 110. In step S14, the coding function 34 determines whether or not the input from the programmer is a check-in instruction.

  If it is not a check-in instruction (NO in S14), the coding function 34 proceeds to step S15, and determines whether or not the input from the programmer is a new edit line. If the input from the programmer is a new edit line (YES in S15), coding function 34 proceeds to step S16.

  In step S16, the coding function 34 counts up the number of edit lines. In step S17, the coding function 34 counts down the number of remaining lines. In step S18, the coding function 34 determines whether the review condition has expired. The review conditions set in step S18 are that the specified number of lines have been edited and that the remaining number of lines has been warned.

  If it is determined that the review condition has not expired (NO in S18), the coding function 34 proceeds to step S21 and determines whether or not the number of remaining warning lines to be warned. If it is not the number of remaining warning lines (NO in S21), the coding function 34 returns to step S13 and accepts input from the programmer to the coding screen 110 again.

  If it is the number of warning remaining lines (YES in S21), the coding function 34 proceeds to step S22, and displays the remaining number of lines warning screen 120 as shown in FIG. FIG. 10 is an image diagram of an example of the remaining row number warning screen. The remaining line number warning screen 120 in FIG. 10 is a pop-up message notifying the programmer that the number of remaining lines is approaching when the remaining line number reaches 5. Note that the number of remaining lines before the designated number of lines can be customized to display the remaining line number warning screen 120 on the output device 11.

  In step S23, the coding function 34 determines whether the confirmation button on the remaining row number warning screen 120 in FIG. 10 has been pressed. If it is determined that the confirmation button has been pressed (YES in S23), the coding function 34 returns to step S13 and accepts input from the programmer to the coding screen 110 again. If it is determined that the confirmation button has not been pressed (NO in S23), coding function 34 returns to step S22.

  On the other hand, if it is determined that the review condition has expired (NO in S18), the coding function 34 proceeds to step S19 and performs the reviewer setting process shown in FIG. FIG. 11 is a flowchart showing the procedure of the reviewer setting process. In step S41, the coding function 34 instructs the review function 35 to start the reviewer setting process.

  In step S41, the review function 35 requests the table management function 33 to search the miss category table 37 using the programmer user ID as key information. FIG. 12 is a configuration diagram of an example of the miss category table. The miss category table 37 shown in FIG. 12 includes a record including a programmer name, a user ID, a miss category, the number of misses, and the last miss date. The miss category table 37 counts mistakes made by the programmer for each category.

  In step S42, the review function 35 obtains the number of mistakes the programmer has made in the past for each category of mistakes as a search result of the mistake category table 37 using the user ID of the programmer as key information from the table management function 33. it can. Further, the review function 35 acquires the number of reviews by the programmer from the table management function 33.

  In step S43, the review function 35 calculates the error rate of the programmer based on the number of mistakes in the category with the most mistakes and the number of reviews. The miss rate calculated in step S43 can be divided into “high miss rate”, “medium miss rate”, and “low miss rate” by comparison with the miss rate of other programmers.

  In step S44, the review function 35 requests the table management function 33 to sort the miss-discovery category table 38 using the number of discoveries of the category with the most mistakes as key information. FIG. 13 is a configuration diagram of an example of the miss finding category table. The miss-discovery category table 38 in FIG. 13 is composed of records including reviewer names, discovery-miss categories, discovery times, and the last discovery date. The miss discovery category table 38 counts mistakes discovered by reviewers for each category.

  In step S45, the review function 35 determines whether the error rate of the programmer is high. If it is determined that the error rate is high (YES in S45), the review function 35 proceeds to step S46, and after assigning an advanced reviewer who finds the category of mistakes most likely to be committed by the programmer, proceeds to step S51. On the other hand, if it is determined that the error rate is not high (NO in S45), review function 35 proceeds to step S47.

  In step S47, the review function 35 determines whether the error rate of the programmer is medium. If the error rate is determined to be medium (YES in S47), the review function 35 proceeds to step S48, and after assigning an intermediate reviewer of the number of miss categories found most likely to be committed by the programmer, the process proceeds to step S51. . On the other hand, if it is determined that the miss rate is not medium (NO in S47), review function 35 proceeds to step S50.

  Proceeding to step S50, the review function 35 assigns a beginner reviewer who finds the category of the mistake category most likely to be committed by the programmer because the error rate of the programmer is neither high nor medium, and then proceeds to step S51. .

  In step S51, the review function 35 sets a review for the source to be reviewed, and stores the reviewer user ID assigned in steps S46, S48, and S50 in the source management DB 36, for example. In the reviewer setting process of FIG. 11, reviewers can be automatically assigned according to the number of mistakes made by the programmer for each category and the number of mistakes found by the reviewer for each category.

  The reviewer setting process in step S19 does not necessarily have to automatically assign reviewers. When a project manager (leader) selects a reviewer, a reviewer candidate display screen 130 as shown in FIG. May be displayed.

  FIG. 14 is an image diagram of an example of a reviewer candidate display screen. The reviewer candidate display screen 130 of FIG. 14 includes information on the characteristics of the programmer's mistakes and the characteristics of the mistaken discovery rate of the selected reviewer candidate. The characteristics of the programmer's mistake and the characteristics of the selected reviewer candidate's error detection rate can be obtained from the error category table 37 and the error detection category table 38. The project manager can easily select a reviewer suitable for the programmer with reference to information included in the reviewer candidate display screen 130.

  When the reviewer setting process in step S19 is completed, the coding function 34 proceeds to step S20 and performs the check-in process shown in FIG. Even when it is determined in step S14 that the instruction is a check-in instruction (YES in S14), the coding function 34 proceeds to step S20 and performs the check-in process shown in FIG.

  FIG. 15 is a flowchart showing the procedure of the check-in process. In step S61, the coding function 34 requests the source management function 32 to reflect the contents of the coding process in the source that is the target of the source management DB 36.

  In step S62, the source management function 32 determines whether the target source cannot be edited simultaneously. If it is determined that simultaneous editing is not possible (YES in S62), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S63 and unlocks the target source. If it is determined that simultaneous editing is not possible (NO in S62), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S64 and performs conflict processing. Here, the conflict process is a process for ensuring consistency of editing parts at the time of simultaneous editing by a plurality of programmers, and checks whether the same part is being edited by different programmers. Since it is not the essence of the present application, it will not be described in detail.

  Proceeding to step S65 following steps S63 and S64, the source management function 32 stores the programmer user ID reflecting the contents of the coding process in the source of the source management DB 36.

  When the check-in process in step S20 ends, the coding function 34 ends the coding process. If it is determined in step S11 that the source management function 32 has been set for review (YES in S11), the process proceeds to step S24, a review wait warning screen is displayed on the output device 11, and the coding process is terminated.

  That is, the source whose number of edit lines by the programmer has expired the review condition is already set for review, so that the coding process is prohibited until the review setting is canceled by the review process described later. Therefore, the programmer can quickly and surely review the reviewer.

  Next, the review process in step S7 will be described. 16 and 17 are flowcharts showing the procedure of the review process. In step S71, the source management function 32 determines whether or not the source selected from the file list is a review target. If it is a review target (YES in S71), the source management function 32 uses the authentication function 31 to acquire the reviewer's user ID, and matches the reviewer's user ID assigned to the review target source. Determine whether or not.

  If it matches the user ID of the reviewer assigned to the source to be reviewed (YES in S72), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S73 and performs the checkout process described above with reference to FIG. When the source selected from the file list is assigned to the reviewer, the source management function 32 proceeds to step S74 and instructs the review function 35 to start the review process. The review function 35 displays a review screen 140 as shown in FIG.

  FIG. 18 is an image diagram of an example of a review screen. The review screen 140 is filled with an approval color or a color corresponding to the number of mistakes so that a review completion line can be visually recognized. In the review screen 140 of FIG. 18, a portion painted with an approval color or a color corresponding to the number of mistakes is surrounded by a dotted line. In the actual review screen 140, the character color can be browsed because the approval color (for example, blue) or the error frequency corresponding color (for example, red) is painted on the character background.

  Here, the approval color is a color that fills a source line that is confirmed to be normal by review. The color corresponding to the number of misses is a color that changes in accordance with the number of misses, which fills the source line in which the reviewer has confirmed the abnormality by review. The review function 35 receives input from the reviewer for the review screen 140.

  In step S75, the review function 35 determines whether or not the input from the reviewer is a check-in instruction. If it is not a check-in instruction (NO in S75), the review function 35 proceeds to step S76 and determines whether or not the input from the reviewer is an indication of a mistake. If the input from the reviewer indicates a mistake (YES in S76), review function 35 proceeds to step S77.

  In step S77, the review function 35 requests the table management function 33 to reflect the indication of the mistake from the reviewer in the miss category table 37, the miss discovery category table 38, and the miss statistical information table 39 shown in FIG. The table management function 33 counts up the number of misses, the number of discovery times, or the number of occurrences of the corresponding category in the miss category table 37, the miss discovery category table 38, and the miss statistics information table 39.

  FIG. 19 is a configuration diagram of an example of the miss statistics information table. The miss statistical information table 39 in FIG. 19 is composed of records including miss categories, the number of occurrences, and the last discovery date. The miss statistical information table 39 is used to count mistakes made by individual programmers and count them for each category as statistical information of the entire programmer.

  Proceeding to step S78, the review function 35 sets a color corresponding to the number of misses for the corresponding line, and proceeds to step S79 to determine whether or not all the lines of the source are colored. If all the lines of the source are not colored (NO in S79), the review function 35 returns to step S74 and waits for the next input from the reviewer.

  In step S76, if the input from the reviewer is not an indication of a mistake (NO in S76), the review function 35 proceeds to step S82. In step S82, the review function 35 determines whether or not the input from the reviewer is approval. If the input from the reviewer is approval (YES in S82), the review function 35 proceeds to step S83, sets the approval color in the corresponding line, and proceeds to step S79.

  In step S79, the view function 35 determines whether all the rows of the source have been colored. If the input from the reviewer is not approved (NO in S82), the review function 35 returns to step S74 and waits for the next input from the reviewer.

  If all the lines of the source are colored in step S79 (YES in S79), the review function 35 proceeds to step S80 and counts the number of reviews (not shown) in the miss category table 37 and the miss discovery category table 38. Let me up. In step S81, the review function 35 cancels the review setting of the source to be reviewed, and then proceeds to step S85. Note that also in the case of a check-in instruction in step S75 (YES in S75), the review function 35 proceeds to step S85.

  In step S85, the review function 35 performs a check-in warning process for displaying a check-in warning screen on the output device 11 so that the source is reflected in the source management DB 36. In step S86, the review function 35 determines whether the confirmation button on the check-in warning screen has been pressed.

  If it is determined that the confirmation button has been pressed (YES in S86), the review function 35 proceeds to step S87, performs the check-in process described above with reference to FIG. 15, and ends the process. The review function 35 returns to step S85 if the confirmation button is not pressed (NO in S86).

  If it is determined in step S71 that the source selected from the file list is not a review target (NO in S71), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S84. In step S72, if the user ID of the reviewer assigned to the source to be reviewed does not match (NO in S72), the source management function 32 proceeds to step S84.

  In step S84, the source management function 32 requests the review function 35 to perform a review non-review warning process for displaying a review non-review warning screen on the output device 11. The non-review target warning screen includes information indicating that the source selected from the file list cannot be reviewed. After the review out-of-review warning process in step S84, the review function 35 ends the process.

  The review function 35 uses the miss category table 37 and the miss statistics information table 39 to select lines that match mistakes that the programmer has made in the past or that are statistically easy to make, including other programmers. It can also be indicated by color or blinking. By showing lines that match mistakes that the programmer himself has made in the past or mistakes that are statistically easy to make, including other programmers, by color or blinking, the reviewer can easily find mistakes.

  When the number of lines edited by the programmer reaches the specified number of lines, the computer that executes each step of the review support method of the present invention cannot proceed with the coding process until the review is performed by the reviewer. As a result, according to the present invention, it is possible to expect a reduction in the review interval and an increase in the number of reviews.

  For example, extending the review interval extends the time it takes for the reviewer to find a mistake made by the programmer. If there is a mistake in the source, a reworking operation occurs, but the amount of reworking work increases in proportion to the time until a mistake is discovered. In addition, when the mistake has a high importance that affects the entire program, the amount of rework is further increased.

  According to the present invention, since the review interval can be shortened, mistakes made by the programmer are likely to be detected early by the reviewer. Therefore, even if the mistake has a high importance that affects the entire program, the amount of reworking work is smaller than the conventional amount.

  In addition, the reduction in the number of reviews results in a lack of mutual communication within the group due to reviews, and negative sharing of important information in group work.

  According to the present invention, since the number of reviews can be increased, mutual communication within the group becomes dense, and sharing of important information in group work becomes positive. In addition, mutual communication within the group is expected to be further improved by selecting reviewers that suit the programmer in consideration of personality and personality.

  Furthermore, the reduction in the number of reviews results in a lack of mutual communication within the group due to reviews, slowing the propagation of knowledge and know-how, making it difficult to propagate knowledge and know-how from advanced programmers to beginner programmers.

  According to the present invention, since the number of reviews can be increased, knowledge and know-how can be smoothly transmitted from an advanced programmer to an elementary programmer. Beginner programmers can easily acquire new knowledge and know-how. Advanced programmers can reaffirm basic knowledge and know-how.

  Note that the combination of the programmer and the reviewer can be determined in consideration of the importance of the module to be created and the learning effect. For example, since a module with high importance cannot be mistaken, a programmer and a reviewer are selected between advanced programmers. For less important modules, beginner and advanced programmers can choose programmers and reviewers for education. Also, if necessary, subtle modules can be selected between programmers and reviewers among beginner programmers.

Therefore, according to the present invention, it is possible to prepare a review-necessary working environment in the program development process. As a result, program quality can be ensured during unit testing, and quality improvement can be realized. In addition, during the integration test, it is possible to prevent occurrence of reworking work and shorten the work period.
(Example variation)
In this embodiment, the number of lines is used as the review condition as shown in step S18 in FIG. 7, but the number of characters or the number of instructions may be used. In addition, the computer executing each step of the review support method of the present invention may authenticate the programmer and the reviewer by connecting an authentication device such as a fingerprint authentication device.

  The computer executing each step of the review support method of the present invention connected to the fingerprint authentication device prevents impersonation of the programmer and the reviewer, and for example, the review cannot be performed unless the programmer and the reviewer are simultaneously touching the fingerprint authentication device. By doing so, it is possible to accurately grasp whether the review has been performed reliably.

  Further, as shown in step S19 in FIG. 7 and the like, in this embodiment, reviewers or reviewer candidates are selected according to the number of mistakes made by the programmer in the past and the number of mistakes found by the reviewer for each category. Although selected, it may be selected at random.

  The review support method of the present invention may be realized as a function of a coding processing editor, a compiler function, or a checker function that operates in cooperation with the compiler. Alternatively, it may be realized as a function of a tool different from the editor, compiler, or checker.

The present invention may have the following configurations as described below.
(Appendix 1)
Computer
A storage step of storing in the storage means information that requires review by the approver based on the creator's input;
A monitoring step of monitoring whether the information stored in the storage means has reached a predetermined condition;
A review support method for executing a prohibiting step for prohibiting the creator's input when the information stored in the storage means reaches a predetermined condition.
(Appendix 2)
The computer is
When the information stored in the storage means reaches a predetermined condition, a selection step for selecting an approver to review the information;
The review support method according to appendix 1, further comprising a permission step of permitting input to the information when the selected approver completes the review of the information stored in the storage unit.
(Appendix 3)
The storage step further stores, for all creators and approvers, the contents of information pointed out to the approver in the past and the contents of information pointed out to the creator as a table in the storage means,
The review support method according to appendix 2, wherein the selecting step selects an approver who reviews the information stored in the storage unit with reference to the table stored in the storage unit.
(Appendix 4)
The computer is
A reference output step of outputting the contents of the information that is statistically easily pointed out among the information in a visually different manner by referring to the table stored in the storage means when a review request is received from the approver The review support method according to supplementary note 2, further executed.
(Appendix 5)
The storing step further stores in the storage means such that a part of the information that has not been reviewed and a part that has been reviewed can be identified,
5. The review support method according to any one of appendices 1 to 4, further comprising an explicit output step of outputting a part where the review is incomplete so as to be visually different when a review request is received from the approver.
(Appendix 6)
The computer is
After the review by the selected approver is completed, upon receipt of an input request from the creator, the table stored in the storage means is referred to and the content of the information pointed out by the approver is pointed out The review support method according to any one of appendices 1 to 4, further comprising: executing a review result output step of outputting the image so as to be visually different depending on the frequency of.
(Appendix 7)
Any one of appendices 1 to 6, wherein the monitoring step monitors whether or not the amount of information that has not been reviewed by the approver of the information input by the creator has reached a predetermined amount of information. The review support method according to one item.

  The present invention is not limited to the specifically disclosed embodiments, and various modifications and changes can be made without departing from the scope of the claims.

It is a hardware block diagram of the computer which performs the review assistance program of this invention. 1 is a configuration diagram of an embodiment of a system that uses a computer that executes a review support program by connecting to a network. It is a functional diagram of an example of a computer that executes a review support program. It is a whole flowchart showing an example of the processing procedure of the computer which executes a review support program. It is an image figure of an example of a source management screen. It is an image figure of an example of a right click menu screen. It is a flowchart showing the procedure of the coding process. It is a flowchart showing the procedure of the checkout process. It is an image figure of an example of a coding screen. It is an image figure of an example of a remaining line number warning screen. It is a flowchart showing the procedure of the reviewer setting process. It is a block diagram of an example of a miss category table. It is a block diagram of an example of a mistake discovery category table. It is an image figure of an example of a reviewer candidate display screen. It is a flowchart showing the procedure of the check-in process. It is a flowchart (1/2) showing the procedure of the review process. It is a flowchart (2/2) showing the procedure of the review process. It is an image figure of an example of a review screen. It is a block diagram of an example of a miss statistics information table.

Explanation of symbols

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 10 Input device 11 Output device 12 Drive device 13 Auxiliary storage device 14 Memory device 15 Arithmetic processing device 16 Interface device 17 Recording medium 20 Server device 21a-21n Client 23 Network 31 Authentication function 32 Source management function 33 Table management function 34 Coding function 35 Review function 36 Source control DB
37 Miss Category Table 38 Miss Found Category Table 39 Miss Statistics Information Table

Claims (2)

Based on the creator's input, it is stored in the storage means, and it is monitored whether the information that needs to be reviewed by the approver has reached a predetermined condition.
When the information stored in the storage means reaches a predetermined condition, select an approver to review the information according to the past error rate of the creator,
Set the selected review for the information,
Prohibit editing of the information until the review setting is canceled by the review process to the information stored in the storage means by the selected approver,
A review support program that causes a computer to execute processing. The process of selecting the approver includes a mistake category table in which the creator stored in the rule means stores the number of mistakes for each category of information pointed out to the approver in the past, and the approver in the past With reference to a mistake discovery category table holding the number of mistakes found for each category of information pointed out to the creator, calculate the mistake rate of the category with the most mistakes of the creator,
The author's error rate is compared with other creators' error rates to determine whether the creator's error rate is high or low, and the higher the creator's error rate, the higher the number of mistakes found in the category. The review support program according to claim 1, wherein an approver is selected, and an approver having a lower number of mistakes in the category is selected as the error rate of the creator is lower.

Images