  Code Review plays a crucial role in software quality, by allowing reviewers
to discuss and critique any new patches before they can be successfully
integrated into the project code. Yet, it is unsure the extent to which coding
pattern changes (i.e., repetitive code) from when a patch is first submitted
and when the decision is made (i.e., during the review process). In this study,
we revisit coding patterns in code reviews, aiming to analyze whether or not
the coding pattern changes during the review process. Comparing prior submitted
patches, we measure differences in coding pattern between pre-review~(i.e.,
patch before the review) and post-review~(i.e., patch after a review) from
27,736 reviewed OpenStack patches. Results show that patches after review, tend
to conform to similar coding patterns of accepted patches, compared to when
they were first submitted. We also find that accepted patches do have similar
coding patterns to prior accepted patches. Our study reveals insights into the
review process, supporting the potential for automated tool support for
newcomers and lays the groundwork for work into understanding conformance and
how it makes for an efficient code review process.
