At work I've recently been going through lots of bug reports. It is part of my job to determine the priority of each defect that gets reported and whether we should still fix it in the upcoming release. With multiple testers trying to break the product in all possible ways and a deadline approaching rapidly, analyzing the newfound defects seems to take more and more time.
What did you see?
People entering defects can actually do a lot to reduce the time it takes to analyze their entries. You'd be amazed at the number of defects that say something along the lines:
"when I do A, B happens"
There are of course cases when this is all there is to say about a defect. For example:
"when I click the Ok button, the browser shows an internal apache error"
Granted, it would be more useful if the report said a bit more about the error message. But it is at least clear that an internal error message should not be shown to the user.
What did you expect to see?
Unfortunately things are not always so clear:
"when try to I delete the last item from the list, I get a message saying at least one item is required"
When I get an error report like this, I'm not sure what to do with it. Most likely there is an internal rule in the program that this list may never be empty. And the program seems to enforce this rule by giving a message when you try to delete the last remaining item. So there is a "business rule" in the program and the developer wrote code to enforce that rule. Where is the defect?
In cases like these I ask the person who entered the defect why they think this behavior is wrong. Typically I get an answer like:
"if I can't delete the selected item, the delete button should be disabled"
This added information makes things a lot clearer. So the tester didn't disagree with the fact that there should always be at least one item in the list, they just didn't agree with the way it was handled.
Why do you think your expectation is better than the current behavior?
But the above leaves me with a problem. There is a clear rule in the program that the list must never be empty. The programmer implemented this one way, someone else thought it should have been implemented another way.
In cases like these I ask the tester (or whoever reported the defect) to explain why they think their expectation is better than the current behavior. In the example we've used so far, the reason could be something like:
"clicking the button when there is only one item in the list will always show an error message - the delete action will never be performed. Buttons that don't lead to an action being executed should be disabled."
This is a clear - albeit somewhat abstract - description of the reason why the person expected the behavior to be different.
In this example I doubt whether anyone will disagree with the reasoning of the tester. But there are many cases where someone will disagree. Especially the developer that implemented the functionality will tend to defend the way it works.
That's why I normally prefer the defect to point to other places where similar functionality is available in the way the tester prefers it. So in the example defect:
"in screens B and C we have a similar list and there the delete button is disabled if there is only one item remaining in the list"
This type of argument works especially well when the functionality in screens B and C has already been in a released version of the product. The users of the product have experienced the functionality and they will expect the new screen to behave in the same way.
If no similar functionality is available in the application, I often look for other programs that have similar functionality. On Windows the notepad application is one of my favorite examples. Everybody has it and the functionality as not substantially changed for at least a decade. Of course the functionality your program has might not be in notepad. In those cases I often refer to programs like Microsoft Office, Outlook, Firefox or the Google home-page. Not because I think these are perfect programs, but because they're so ubiquitous that most users accept them as a reference point for the behavior they expose.
So a bug report should at least contain the following ingredients:
- What did you see?
- What did you expect to see?
- Why do you think that 2 is better than 1?
Now if everyone starts filing their bug reports like that, I will have to spend a lot less time on analyzing them and can get back to fixing those defects sooner. Who knows... maybe we'll make that deadline after all.