SPONSORS:






User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Failed defects

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida, USA
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Failed defects

    Hi All,

    Trying to get some industry information. Recently came off a project where 18.5% of the total defects failed after being addressed by dev and put back into QA for retesting. Is that high? low? normal? What are you guys seeing with regards to this in your work place?

  2. #2
    Advanced Member KishoreApplabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Failed defects


    If the dev team addressing defect ratio 18.5% that could be high in QA prospective.

    In that also different classes

    1)Those failure defect severity?
    2)some of the defects they can says feature build reference

    Regards,
    Kishore

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Failed defects

    Can you tell the number of defects, available number of Developers and % failure?

    18.5% can be 2 out of 10 in a team of 4 dev.... or 200 out of 1000 in a team of 3 dev...
    - Fake Software Tester
    (Not a secret identity, but a chosen mask!!!)

    http://fakesoftwaretester.blogspot.com

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    230
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Failed defects

    I'd say it depends on the project.
    Consider the following:

    Experience of development staff - are you looking at seasoned programmers or mostly inexperienced junior staff?

    Technologies used - any new shiny languages/frameworks/platforms etc can cause an initial increase in defects

    Poor development techniques - a high defect ratio and, in particular a high bounce ratio (defects failing retest and going back to dev) can be indicative of a 'chuck it over the wall' (into test) mentality - if that is occurring you're looking at a need to work closely with the individual(s).
    1. 9.5.2.
    2. Flex
    2.1 .Net will be used but isn't the main focus.
    2.2 .NET 3.5 and 4.0
    2.3 No
    3. No
    4. No
    5. Not currently installed
    6. Not currently installed
    7. 250 users, perm
    9. XP sp 2 on the clients. Red Hat 9 EL on the servers.
    10. No

  5. #5
    Moderator Joe Strazzere's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    13,170
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Failed defects

    [ QUOTE ]
    Recently came off a project where 18.5% of the total defects failed after being addressed by dev and put back into QA for retesting. Is that high? low? normal? What are you guys seeing with regards to this in your work place?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    We've had some projects with a higher rate of failed fixes than that. Our root cause analysis showed that a few developers weren't doing any real unit testing of their fixes. Even worse, they were having a hard time understanding and interpreting the bug reports.

    But, usually we don't have anywhere near that rate.

    What does your analysis tell you is going on at your shop?
    Joe Strazzere
    Visit my website: AllThingsQuality.com to learn more about quality, testing, and QA!

  6. #6
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida, USA
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Re: Failed defects

    Thanks for the posts. The total defects were 329 defects over a 12 week period. The developers (3) were mixed Jr and Sr. The technology was new to us which brought additonal challenges in DEV and QA. From a planning perspective I took all that into consideration and beefed up the QA team to mitiagte the risks of Jr people, time crunch and new Technology. However, I saw a lot of development shortcuts being taken. Good practices were not followed. This includes a lack of Unit testing. Not one dev member could show me a single Unit test result. I had to implement code handoffs to ensure some level of quality was coming into QA. My thoughts are that as a result of practices not being followed and we took the "Throw it over the wall" approach that it led to 61 of the 329 total defects or 18.5% of those defects having failed. As I read through the defect description it becomes clear that the majority of these would of been caught during Unit testing. Anyways, just wanted to see what some other folks might be seeing out there. Thanks again for the feedback.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.36 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 10.00%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.4 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.2.8 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBNominate (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Username Changing provided by Username Change (Free) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
BetaSoft Inc.
Digital Point modules: Sphinx-based search
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:39 AM.

Copyright BetaSoft Inc.