Which or the following would be a key difference between a peer review of code and static analysis of code using a tool?

Question

Options

• AA peer reviews finds defects while static analysis finds failures.
• BStatic analysis targets the code technically whereas Peer review is applicable to further aspects.
• CPeer reviews cannot find missing requirements whereas static analysis can
• DA peer reviews find failures while static analysis finds defects.

• A
  10% (4)
• B
  83% (33)
• C
  5% (2)
• D
  3% (1)

Explanation

The key difference between a peer review of code and static analysis of code using a tool lies in their approaches and scope. A peer review is a manual inspection of the code by peers or colleagues, focusing not only on the technical aspects of the code but also on other elements such as design, compliance with standards, and maintainability. Peer reviews can identify defects, suggest improvements, and ensure that the code adheres to best practices and team standards. On the other hand, static analysis is an automated process performed by tools designed to analyze the code without executing it. These tools can detect potential issues such as syntax errors, vulnerabilities, and code smells based on predefined rules and patterns. While static analysis is technically focused, it lacks the broader perspective that human reviewers can provide, such as evaluating the code's maintainability or adherence to project-specific standards. Therefore, static analysis targets the code technically, whereas peer review encompasses a wider range of aspects, making option B the correct answer.

No community discussion yet for this question.