Defect Classification: 1.severity Wise 2.work Product Wise 3.type of Error Wise 4.status Wise
Defect Classification: 1.severity Wise 2.work Product Wise 3.type of Error Wise 4.status Wise
Defect Classification: 1.severity Wise 2.work Product Wise 3.type of Error Wise 4.status Wise
What is defect?
Defect: A defect is an error or a bug, in the application which is created. A programmer
while designing and building the software can make mistakes or errors. These mistakes or
errors mean that there are flaws in the software. These are called defects.
Defects in any system may arise in various stages of development life cycle. At each stage,
the impact and cost of fixing defects are dependent on various aspects including the defect
arising stage.
Defect Classification
Defect Classification
1.Severity Wise
2.Work Product Wise
3.Type Of Error Wise
4.Status Wise
Severity Wise:
Major: A defect, which will cause an observable product failure or departure from
requirements.
Minor: A defect that will not cause a failure in execution of the product.
Fatal: A defect that will cause the system to crash or close abruptly or effect other
applications.
Status Wise:
Open
Closed
Deferred
Cancelled
Defect Resolution -- Work by the development team to prioritize, schedule and fix a defect, and
document the resolution. This also includes notification back to the tester to ensure that the
resolution is verified.
Process Improvement -- Identification and analysis of the process in which a defect originated
to identify ways to improve the process to prevent future occurrences of similar defects. Also
the validation process that should have identified the defect earlier is analyzed to determine ways
to strengthen that process.
DEFECT LIFE CYCLE (Bug Life cycle) is the journey of a defect from its identification to
its closure. The Life Cycle varies from organization to organization and is governed by the
software testing process the organization or project follows and/or the Defect tracking tool
being used.
New: When the bug is posted for the first time, its state will be “NEW”. This means
that the bug is not yet approved.
Open: After a tester has posted a bug, the lead of the tester approves that the bug is
genuine and he changes the state as “OPEN”.
Assign: Once the lead changes the state as “OPEN”, he assigns the bug
corresponding developer or developer team. The state of the bug now is changed to
“ASSIGN”.
Test/Retest: Once the developer fixes the bug, he has to assign the bug to the testing
team for next round of testing. Before he releases the software with bug fixed, he
changes the state of bug to “TEST”. It specifies that the bug has been fixed and is
released to testing team.// At this stage the tester do the retesting of the changed code
which developer has given to him to check whether the defect got fixed or not.
Deferred: The bug, changed to deferred state means the bug is expected to be fixed in
next releases. The reasons for changing the bug to this state have many factors. Some
of them are priority of the bug may be low, lack of time for the release or the bug may
not have major effect on the software.
Rejected: If the developer feels that the bug is not genuine, he rejects the bug. Then
the state of the bug is changed to “REJECTED”.
Verified: Once the bug is fixed and the status is changed to “TEST”, the tester tests
the bug. If the bug is not present in the software, he approves that the bug is fixed and
changes the status to “VERIFIED”.
Reopened: If the bug still exists even after the bug is fixed by the developer, the
tester changes the status to “REOPENED”. The bug traverses the life cycle once
again.
Closed: Once the bug is fixed, it is tested by the tester. If the tester feels that the bug
no longer exists in the software, he changes the status of the bug to “CLOSED”. This
state means that the bug is fixed, tested and approved.
Fixed: When developer makes necessary code changes and verifies the changes then
he/she can make bug status as „Fixed‟ and the bug is passed to testing team.
Pending retest: After fixing the defect the developer has given that particular code
for retesting to the tester. Here the testing is pending on the testers end. Hence its
status is pending retest.
Thus, defects cause software to fail to meet requirements and make customers
unhappy.
when a defect gets through during the development process, the earlier it is
diagnosed, the easier and cheaper is the rectification of the defect.
The end result in prevention or early detection is a product with zero or minimal
defects.
Identify Critical Risks -- Identify the critical risks facing the project or system. These are the
types of defects that could jeopardize the successful construction, delivery and/or operation of
the system.
Estimate Expected Impact -- For each critical risk, make an assessment of the financial impact
if the risk becomes a problem.
Minimize Expected Impact -- Once the most important risks are identified try to eliminate
each risk. For risks that cannot be eliminated, reduce the probability that the risk will become a
problem and the financial impact should that happen.
Defects introduced during the requirements and design phase are not only more probable
but also are more severe and more difficult to remove.
Front-end errors in requirements and design cannot be found and removed via testing, but
instead need pre-test reviews and inspections.
Self-review is one of the most effective activity in uncovering the defects which may later be
discovered by a testing team or directly by a customer.
A self-review of the code helps reduce the defects related to algorithm mplementations,
incorrect logic or certain missing conditions.
Peer review is similar to self-review in terms of the objective – the only difference is that it
is a peer (someone who understands the functionality of the code very well) who reviews the
code
Effective defect tracking begins with a systematic process. A structured tracking process
begins with initially logging the defects, investigating the defects, then providing the structure to
resolve them. Defect analysis and reporting offer a powerful means to manage defects and defect
depletion trends, hence, costs.
After defects are logged and documented, the next step is to analyze them
Reducing the defects to improve the quality: The analysis should lead to implementing
changes in processes that help prevent defects and ensure their early detection.
Applying local expertise: The people who really understand what went wrong are the people
present when the defects were inserted – members of the software engineering team. They can
give the best suggestions for how to avoid such defects in the future.
Targeting the systematic errors: There may be many errors or defects to be handled in such
an analysis forum; however, some mistakes tend to be repeated. These systematic errors account
for a large portion of the defects found in the typical software project.
A plan of action is made for deployment of the modification of the existing processes or
introduction of the new ones with the consent of management and the team.
1. Once the critical risks are identified, the financial impact of each risk should be
estimated.
2. This can be done by assessing the impact, in dollars, if the risk does become a problem
combined with the probability that the risk will become a problem.
3. The product of these two numbers is the expected impact of the risk.
E = P * I, where:
Once the expected impact of each risk is identified, the risks should be prioritized by the
expected impact and the degree to which the expected impact can be reduced. While guess work
will constitute a major role in producing these numbers, precision is not important. What will be
important is to identify the risk, and determine the risk's order of magnitude. Large, complex
systems will have many critical risks. Whatever can be done to reduce the probability of each
individual critical risk becoming a problem to a very small number should be done. Doing this
increases the probability of a successful project by increasing the probability that none of the
critical risks will become a problem.
One should assume that an individual critical risk has a low probability of becoming a problem
only when there is specific knowledge justifying why it is low. For example, the likelihood that
an important requirement was missed may be high if developers have not involved users in the
project. If users have actively participated in the requirements definition, and the new system is
not a radical departure from an existing system or process, the likelihood may be low.
For example:
o An organization with a project of 2,500 function points and was about medium at defect
discovery and removal would have 1,650 defects remaining after all defect removal and
discovery activities.
o The organization would be able to remove about 45% of the defects or 1,350 defects.
o The total potential defects (3,000) less the removed defects (1,350) equals the remaining
defects of 1,650.
While it is beyond the scope of this study to compare and contrast the various static,
dynamic, and operational techniques, the research did arrive at the following conclusions:
Both static and dynamic techniques are required for an effective defect management
program. In each category, the more formally the techniques were integrated into the
development process, the more effective they were.
Since static techniques will generally find defects earlier in the process, they are more
efficient at finding defects.
Reporting a Defect
Be specific:
1. Specify the exact action: Do not say something like ‘Select ButtonB’. Do you
mean ‘Click ButtonB’ or ‘Press ALT+B’ or ‘Focus on ButtonB and click
ENTER’? Of course, if the defect can be arrived at by using all the three ways,
it’s okay to use a generic term as ‘Select’ but bear in mind that you might just get
the fix for the ‘Click ButtonB’ scenario. [Note: This might be a highly unlikely
example but it is hoped that the message is clear.]
2. In case of multiple paths, mention the exact path you followed: Do not say
something like “If you do ‘A and X’ or ‘B and Y’ or ‘C and Z’, you get D.”
Understanding all the paths at once will be difficult. Instead, say “Do ‘A and X’
and you get D.” You can, of course, mention elsewhere in the report that “D can
also be got if you do ‘B and Y’ or ‘C and Z’.”
3. Do not use vague pronouns: Do not say something like “In ApplicationA, open X,
Y, and Z, and then close it.” What does the ‘it’ stand for? ‘Z’ or, ‘Y’, or ‘X’ or
‘ApplicationA’?”
Be detailed:
1. Provide more information (not less). In other words, do not be lazy. Developers
may or may not use all the information you provide but they sure do not want to
beg you for any information you have missed.
Be objective:
1. Do not be impatient and file a defect report as soon as you uncover a defect.
Replicate it at least once more to be sure. (If you cannot replicate it again, try
recalling the exact test condition and keep trying. However, if you cannot
replicate it again after many trials, finally submit the report for further
investigation, stating that you are unable to reproduce the defect anymore and
providing any evidence of the defect if you had gathered. )
1. Do not hit ‘Submit’ as soon as you write the report. Review it at least once.
Remove any typos.