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.

翻译：现代流行的代码评审工具（如Gerrit和GitHub）默认按字母顺序排列代码评审中的文件。先前的一项研究（针对开源项目）表明，代码评审中变更文件的位置会影响评审过程。其结果显示，排序靠后的文件获得评审关注的可能性低于其他文件。因此，这些文件中遗漏缺陷的概率更高。本文探讨了文件排序对知名工业项目IntelliJ IDEA中代码评审的影响。首先，我们在一个大型专有软件项目中验证了先前研究的结果。然后，我们探索了一种替代默认字母顺序的方法：根据代码差异对变更文件进行排序。我们的结果证实了先前研究的发现。我们注意到评审者对排在代码评审较前位置的文件留下了更多评论。此外，这些结果表明，即使数据倾向于字母顺序，就定位需要更多评审关注的问题文件而言，按代码差异排序变更文件比标准字母顺序表现更佳。这些结果证实，需要进一步探索代码评审中的多样化排序策略。