How to Reduce Duplicate Bug Reporting by 75%

Reducing the pester of duplications in bug reporting.

Both software Developers and Testers need to be able to clearly identify any ‘Bug’, via the ‘Title’ used for the ‘Bug Report’.

Efficiency and Flexible Random Naming

By design, development tools like; SQL, PHP, FileMaker give development teams the freedom to randomly name; tables, fields, scripts, and display layouts. Likewise, testing teams have the same freedom creating titles for ‘Bug Reports’.

But, freedom comes at a price. In this case, the freedom to randomly name elements can result in less efficiency. However, we can increase efficiency and organization through well structured, ‘Unique Naming’. Let’s examine common tasks.

Software Testers:

  1. FIND: a ‘Bug’;
  2. SEARCH: previously reported bugs, to verify that their ‘Bug’ is ‘NEW’;
  3. REPORT: a ‘New Bug’, using a ‘Title’ that is unique.

Software Developers:

  1. REVIEW: Reported ‘Bugs’;
  2. SEARCH: Reported bugs to ‘Find’ specific ‘Bug Reports’

Our goal is to retrieve ‘High-Quality Search Results’, directly resulting in greater efficiency.

Poor Quality ‘Bug Titles’ and Duplicates

‘High-Quality Search Results’ are an essential part of ‘Bug Reporting’. ‘Poorly Conceived’ or ‘Duplicate’ bug reports result in less efficiency, translate to lost hours for Developers and Testers, and ultimately produce a lower ROI for the project investors.

Four distinct elements govern ‘Bug Title’ creation:

  1. Naming Formula
  2. Reporting Language
  3. Combination ‘Bug’ Titles
  4. Vocabulary

The first two elements are often well considered and are efficiently managed for most projects. Items No. 3 and 4 are where things can be significantly improved for many projects. So let’s go by the numbers, just to get things into proper focus:

No. 1: Naming Formula:

Resolved simply with a stated policy. For example, many testing companies require their Testers to report using a ‘Formula’ like:

501 – iOS 9 – Menu Top – Function – Home button does not work.

502 – iOS 9 – Function – Menu Bottom – Contact button does not work.

503 – Function – Menu Bottom – Contact button does not work. – iOS 9

These examples quickly tell us important things about the bug. They are also search efficient, for example, a search for; Menu’ and ‘Button’ would list all of the above when a Tester is reporting a ‘Bug’; or a Developer is searching for all the broken ‘Menu Button’ bugs.

No. 2: Reporting Language:

Again, resolved with a stated policy. That said, for many projects the reporting language of choice is ‘English’.

No. 3: Combination ‘Bug’ Titles

Often, a ‘Bug’ may require a combination title, as when the issue involves more than a simple button or tool, for example:

504 – Function – Hotel Booking Page – Calendar / Date Picker fails to hide after entry. – iOS 9

In this case, the problem is with the ‘Calendar’ but more specifically with the ‘Date Picker’ function of the ‘Calendar’.

This problem could be reported as:

  1. a) Calendar fails to hide after entry; or
  2. b) Date Picker fails to hide after entry.

Both would seem to be right, but only the combination title (i.e. Bug Title #504 above) should be used to ensure it is found for either search; ‘Calendar’ or ‘Date Picker’.

The solution, a ‘Managed Naming Formula’.

No. 4: Vocabulary

It is common to have Testers from multiple countries, with many writing in English as a second language (i.e. ESL), resulting in an extreme diversity of vocabulary used. This diversity results in completely different approaches to naming ‘Bug Titles’, quickly increasing the potential for poor quality ‘Titles’.

Again, the solution is a ‘Managed Naming Formula’.

 

The “Oh Happy Day” Solution “A Lexicon”

While we can continue to assume the norm, that Testers have a diversity of vocabulary and style of expression, we can create a special ‘Managed Vocabulary’ that is used for a target software project.

This is what is known as a “Lexicon”, and it is our ‘Happy Day Solution’.

At the onset of a new development project, a ‘Lexicon’ becomes the ‘Official’ vocabulary used by the project for naming. Now, the ‘Lexicon’ provides the guide for well structured, ‘Unique Titles’ for naming tables, fields, scripts, layouts and bug reports. Applying this strategy will compound efficiency in a positive way.

Creating a Lexicon

Now that we have a solution that will increase efficiency in software development, to create a ‘Lexicon’ for your project, I recommend using a ‘Project Wiki’ format for your ‘Lexicon’. This way, missing items can be added by any authorized party to the project at any time.

Conclusion

As with most solutions in the software development world, planning and management are the keys to a highly efficient development process. My proposed solution simply puts the project manager in control.

Best wishes with your software project or testing!

 

Dustin Rodgers
As a Technology Architect and Consultant, Dustin has more than 30 years of testing experience with User Interfaces (UI), User Experience (UX), Functionality, while managing ground-up software and website development projects. He routinely perform freelance testing for several large website, app, and software testing companies, servicing Fortune 500 companies around the world.

The Related Post

One of the most common challenges faced by business leaders is the lack of visibility into QA activities. QA leaders have a tough time communicating the impact, value, and ROI of testing to the executives in a way that they can understand. Traditional reporting practices often fail to paint the full picture and do not ...
Internet-based per-use service models are turning things upside down in the software development industry, prompting rapid expansion in the development of some products and measurable reduction in others. (Gartner, August 2008) This global transition toward computing “in the Cloud” introduces a whole new level of challenge when it comes to software testing.
Let’s look at a few distinctions between the two process improvement practices that make all the difference in their usefulness for making projects and job situations better! An extreme way to look at the goals of these practices is: what makes your work easier (retrospective) versus what did someone else decide is best practice (post-mortem)? ...
One of the most dreaded kinds of bugs are the ones caused by fixes of other bugs or by code changes due to feature requests. I like to call these the ‘bonus bugs,’ since they come on top on the bug load you already have to deal with. Bonus bugs are the major rationale for ...
Test organizations continue to undergo rapid transformation as demands grow for testing efficiencies. Functional test automation is often seen as a way to increase the overall efficiency of functional and system tests. How can a test organization stage itself for functional test automation before an investment in test automation has even been made? Further, how ...
Internet-based per-use service models are turning things upside down in the software development industry, prompting rapid expansion in the development of some products and measurable reduction in others. (Gartner, August 2008) This global transition toward computing “in the Cloud” introduces a whole new level of challenge when it comes to software testing.
Has this ever happened to you: You’ve been testing for a while, perhaps building off of a branch, only to find out that, after all of this time, there is something big wrong. It’s a bad build and now you have to go backwards, fix something, and get a new build. Basically, you just wasted ...
Trying to understand why fails, errors, or warnings occur in your automated tests can be quite frustrating. TestArchitect relieves this pain.  Debugging blindly can be tedious work—especially when your test tool does most of its work through the user interface (UI). Moreover, bugs can sometimes be hard to replicate when single-stepping through a test procedure. ...
D. Richard Kuhn – Computer Scientist, National Institute of Standards & Technology LogiGear: How did you get into software testing? What did you find interesting about it? Mr. Kuhn: About 10 years ago Dolores Wallace and I were investigating the causes of software failures in medical devices, using 15 years of data from the FDA. ...
VISTACON 2010 – Keynote: The future of testing THE FUTURE OF TESTING BJ Rollison – Test Architect at Microsoft VISTACON 2010 – Keynote   BJ Rollison, Software Test Architect for Microsoft. Mr. Rollison started working for Microsoft in 1994, becoming one of the leading experts of test architecture and execution at Microsoft. He also teaches ...
Jeff Offutt – Professor of Software Engineering in the Volgenau School of Information Technology at George Mason University – homepage – and editor-in-chief of Wiley’s journal of Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, LogiGear: How did you get into software testing? What do you find interesting about it? Professor Offutt: When I started college I didn’t ...
Creative Director at the Software Testing Club, Rob Lambert always has something to say about testing. Lambert regularly blogs at TheSocialTester where he engages his readers with test cases, perspectives and trends. “Because It’s Always Been Done This Way” Study the following (badly drawn) image and see if there is anything obvious popping in to ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Stay in the loop with the lastest
software testing news

Subscribe