Search Results

Search found 132 results on 6 pages for 'defect'.

Page 1/6 | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • better way to track defect sources in tfs

    - by deostroll
    What is the best way to track defect sources in tfs? We have various teams for a project like the vulnerability team, the customer, pre-sales, etc. We give a build and these teams independently test it. They do not have access to our tfs system. So they usually send in their defects via email. It will usually be send in an excel format. Our testing team takes these up and logs them into tfs. Sometimes they modify the original defect description (in excel) and add the expected/actual results. Sometimes they miss to cite the source. I am talking about managing the various sources as such. Is there a way we can add these sources into tfs, and actually link this particular source with the defects, with individual comments associated with them (saying where in the source we can find the actual material for the defect).

    Read the article

  • User Acceptance Testing Defect Classification when developing for an outside client

    - by DannyC
    I am involved in a large development project in which we (a very small start up) are developing for an outside client (a very large company). We recently received their first output from UAT testing of a fairly small iteration, which listed 12 'defects', triaged into three categories : Low, Medium and High. The issue we have is around whether everything in this list should be recorded as a 'defect' - some of the issues they found would be better described as refinements, or even 'nice-to-haves', and some we think are not defects at all. They client's QA lead says that it is standard for them to label every issues they identify as a defect, however, we are a bit uncomfortable about this. Whilst the relationship is good, we don't see a huge problem with this, but we are concerned that, if the relationship suffers in the future, these lists of 'defects' could prove costly for us. We don't want to come across as being difficult, or taking things too personally here, and we are happy to make all of the changes identified, however we are a bit concerned especially as there is a uneven power balance at play in our relationship. Are we being paranoid here? Or could we be setting ourselves up for problems down the line by agreeing to this classification?

    Read the article

  • Can defect containment metrics be readily applied at an organizational level when there is only a consistant organizational process framework?

    - by Thomas Owens
    Defect containment metrics, such as total defect containment effectiveness (TDCE) and phase containment effectiveness (PCE), can be used to give a good indicator of the quality of the process. TDCE captures the defects that are captured at some point between requirements and the release of a product into the field, indicating the overall effectiveness of the entire process to find and remove defects. PCE provides more detail at each phase of the software development life cycle and how the defect detection and removal techniques are working. Applying these metrics makes sense at a level where you have a well-defined process and methodology for product development, often a project. However, some organizations provide a process framework that is tailored at the project level. This process framework would include the necessary guidance for meeting certifications (ISO9001, CMMI), practices for incorporating known good techniques (agile methods, Lean, Six Sigma), and requirements for legal or regulatory reasons. However, the specific details of how to gather requirements, design the system, produce the software, conduct test, and release are left to the product development teams. Is there any effective way to apply defect containment metrics at an organizational level when only a process framework exists at the organizational level? If not, what might be some ideas for metrics that can be distilled from each project (each using a tailored process that fits into the organizational process framework) that captures defect containment metrics to discuss the ability of the process to find and remove defects? The end goal of such a metric would be to consolidate the defect containment practices of a large number of ongoing projects and report to management. The target audience would be people in roles such as the chief software engineer and the chief engineer (of all engineering disciplines) for the organization. Although project specific data would be available, the idea is to produce something that quantifies the general effectiveness of all tailored processes across all ongoing projects. I would suspect that this data would also be presented as part of CMMI, ISO, or similar audits to demonstrate process quality.

    Read the article

  • Is it reasonable to insist on reproducing every defect before diagnosing and fixing it?

    - by amphibient
    I work for a software product company. We have large enterprise customers who implement our product and we provide support to them. For example, if there is a defect, we provide patches, etc. In other words, It is a fairly typical setup. Recently, a ticket was issued and assigned to me regarding an exception that a customer found in a log file and that has to do with concurrent database access in a clustered implementation of our product. So the specific configuration of this customer may well be critical in the occurrence of this bug. All we got from the customer was their log file. The approach I proposed to my team was to attempt to reproduce the bug in a similar configuration setup as that of the customer and get a comparable log. However, they disagree with my approach saying that I should not need to reproduce the bug (as that is overly time-consuming and will require simulating a server cluster on VMs) and that I should simply "follow the code" to see where the thread- and/or transaction-unsafe code is and put the change working off of a simple local development, which is not a cluster implementation like the environment from which the occurrence of the bug originates. To me, working out of an abstract blueprint (program code) rather than a concrete, tangible, visible manifestation (runtime reproduction) seems like a difficult working environment (for a person of normal cognitive abilities and attention span), so I wanted to ask a general question: Is it reasonable to insist on reproducing every defect and debug it before diagnosing and fixing it? Or: If I am a senior developer, should I be able to read (multithreaded) code and create a mental picture of what it does in all use case scenarios rather than require to run the application, test different use case scenarios hands on, and step through the code line by line? Or am I a poor developer for demanding that kind of work environment? Is debugging for sissies? In my opinion, any fix submitted in response to an incident ticket should be tested in an environment simulated to be as close to the original environment as possible. How else can you know that it will really remedy the issue? It is like releasing a new model of a vehicle without crash testing it with a dummy to demonstrate that the air bags indeed work. Last but not least, if you agree with me: How should I talk with my team to convince them that my approach is reasonable, conservative and more bulletproof?

    Read the article

  • Rally Rest .NET API throws KeyNotFoundException when posting a new defect without required field value

    - by Triet Pham
    I've tried to post a new defect to Rally via Rest .net api by the following code: var api = new RallyRestApi("<myusername>", "<mypassword>", "https://community.rallydev.com"); var defect = new DynamicJsonObject(); defect["Name"] = "Sample Defect"; defect["Description"] = "Test posting defect without required field value"; defect["Project"] = "https://trial.rallydev.com/slm/webservice/1.29/project/5808130051.js"; defect["SubmittedBy"] = "https://trial.rallydev.com/slm/webservice/1.29/user/5797741589.js"; defect["ScheduleState"] = "In-Progress"; defect["State"] = "Open"; CreateResult creationResult = api.Create("defect", defect); But the api throws a weird exception: System.Collections.Generic.KeyNotFoundException was unhandled Message=The given key was not present in the dictionary. Source=mscorlib StackTrace: at System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2.get_Item(TKey key) at Rally.RestApi.DynamicJsonObject.GetMember(String name) at Rally.RestApi.DynamicJsonObject.TryGetMember(GetMemberBinder binder, Object& result) at CallSite.Target(Closure , CallSite , Object ) at System.Dynamic.UpdateDelegates.UpdateAndExecute1[T0,TRet](CallSite site, T0 arg0) at Rally.RestApi.RallyRestApi.Create(String type, DynamicJsonObject obj) at RallyIntegrationSample.Program.Main(String[] args) in D:\Projects\qTrace\References\Samples\RallyIntegrationSample\Program.cs:line 24 The problem is when i checked out the trace log file of Rally, it showed exactly what wrong in the posting request: Rally.RestApi Post Response: { "CreateResult": { "_rallyAPIMajor":"1", "_rallyAPIMinor":"29", "Errors":["Validation error: Defect.Severity should not be null"], "Warnings":[] } } Instead of given the proper CreateResult object with according errors information in its property, the Rally Rest .Net Api throws an unexpected exception. Is that a mistake in Rally rest .net api or should i do any extra steps to get the CreatResult seamlessly in case of any errors returned by Rally service? Many thanks for your helps.

    Read the article

  • Any suggested approaches to track bugs/defects?

    - by deostroll
    What is the best way to track defect sources in tfs? We have various teams for a project like the vulnerability team, the customer, pre-sales, etc. We give a build and these teams independently test it. They do not have access to our tfs system. So they usually send in their defects via email. It will usually be send in an excel format. Our testing team takes these up and logs them into tfs. Sometimes they modify the original defect description (in excel) and add the expected/actual results. Sometimes they miss to cite the source. I am talking about managing the various sources as such. Is there a way we can add these sources into tfs, and actually link this particular source with the defects, with individual comments associated with them (saying where in the source we can find the actual material for the defect). Edit: I don't know if there is a way to manage various sources. Consider this: the vulnerability assessment team has come out with defects/suggestions. They captured it into an excel and passed that on to the testing team (in my case). The testing team takes the responsibility of elaborating the defect and logging it in tfs. Now say that the excel has come with 20 defect items. This is my source. (It answers the question where did this defect come from). So ultimately when I am looking at a bug I know from where it came from - I'll ultimately be looking at the email sent from the VA team which has the excel or the excel file itself sent by the VA team. It may be one of the 20 items in that excel. How should the tester link to this source just once? On the contrary, it does not make sense for the tester to attach the same excel 20 times (i.e. attach the same excel for the 20 defects while logging it into tfs) right? I hope you get my point.

    Read the article

  • Attaching Files to QC defect by Java code from local machine

    - by Rahul
    Hi All, When we open a defect in QC generally we need to attach the logs of the server i want to Make an application such that It will take files(logs from all the relevant server) and stores in our local machine and then we can rar those files and directly attach it to QC defect mentioned by person opening defect Now my question is how can i access the defect and attach the files to that particular defect Please give your suggestions if any

    Read the article

  • Difference between bug, defect and flaw

    - by Hossein
    I was reading "Software Security: Building Security In" and in the first chapter I faced with 3 terms: bug, defect and flaw. The author gave a definition for each of them but I couldn't completely understand these. Can someone give me some examples for each term? What is a defect and what is a flaw? I think I know what bug is, a bug is a malfunction of a part of system which produces undesirable result, be it crashing on a wrong input or miscalculating a series of computations. Can someone elaborate more and correct me if I am wrong in this? UPDATE To be more precise in the book I mentioned above, they (the words) are presented in a way to make a distinction, that's why I am asking to know more. In that book there are some examples denoting which sample belongs to what and which category. For example: Buffer overflow is said to be a bug and issues in method overriding (subclassing issues) is being related to flaw category. Again race condition handling issues are considered bugs and Error-handling problems (fails open) are told to be flaws! I want more elaboration on these regards.

    Read the article

  • iPad2 - Yet Another Fundamental Defect in an Apple product

    - by Kit Ong
    First it was antenna defect in iPhone4 now it has been reported that some iPad 2 have display issues, Apple really needs to look at their manufacturing process. It doesn't help that workers are working like robots in their main supplier's factory Foxconn. More info on reported display light bleeding http://www.cultofmac.com/if-your-ipad-2-has-display-problems-do-not-return-it-heres-why/87197   How to check your iPad for dead pixel / light leak / bleed http://www.theipadguide.com/content/ipad-dead-pixel-test-how/7171269

    Read the article

  • Software bug/defect classification

    - by Dustin K
    We're trying to come up with terms that better describe our bugs/defects. To us, the term 'bug' or 'defect' is too generic and doesn't accurately reflect what is happening. For example, instead of saying that there is a bug (in the general sense), we'd rather say what type of bug (an error, or enhancement, or improvement, etc.). What names do you use for describing 'bugs'? I found http://www.softwaredevelopment.ca/bugs.shtml which has some pretty good classifications. How do you classify them?

    Read the article

  • ISTQB terminology question (Defect)

    - by user970696
    According to ISTQB (and few more sources + wiki ), a defect/bug is the actual cause of error in software, e.g. incorrect statement, logical or semantic error. The actual definion is: a flaw in the system or component that could lead to the failure. But what about specification bugs? I cannot relate to it. Specification bugs are quite common but if the programmer implements software according to spec with a bug, it is not his fault (IMHO). But then the definion could not apply and I am sure it must have been addressed somehow. Could you help me to understand this?

    Read the article

  • Software bug/defect classification

    - by Dustin K
    We're trying to come up with terms that better describe our bugs/defects. To us, the term 'bug' or 'defect' is too generic and doesn't accurately reflect what is happening. For example, instead of saying that there is a bug (in the general sense), we'd rather say what type of bug (an error, or enhancement, or improvement, etc.). What names do you use for describing 'bugs'? We found http://www.softwaredevelopment.ca/bugs.shtml which has some pretty good classifications. How do you classify them?

    Read the article

  • Oneiric desktop looks seriously defect after updates

    - by Matthijs
    Probably a coincidence, but after applying the fix to How to get the proper LightDM theme? and running the latest batch of updates, my desktop suddenly looked like this after rebooting: Funny thing is, it seems to be account specific, as my girlfriend's account seems unaffected. I can't logout because the whole entry is missing on the top right. Rebooting doesn't solve the issue. System settings (when run from the launcher) lacks a whole lot of icons and changeing the theme doesn't solve the problem (only changes the window top bar). I'm going to try the solution in How do I fix my theme? first, but if that doesn't work (likely, since I seem to have a slightly bigger problem than the one in that question) I'd love something else to try (other than creating a new account).

    Read the article

  • Examples and Best Practices for Seeding Defects?

    - by MathAttack
    Defect Seeding seems to be one of the few ways a development organization can tell how thorough an independent testing group is. I'm a fan of using metrics to help counter overconfidence biases, and drive discussions around facts. With that said, I haven't seen Seeding Defects used in practice. Are there best practices above and beyond what McConnell explained? Are there public examples where this has been done? In the absence of the above, any thoughts on why it hasn't been done more? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Severity and relation to occurence - priority?

    - by user970696
    I have been browsing through some webpages related to testing and found one dealing with the metrics of testing. It says: The severity level of a defect indicates the potential business impact for the end user (business impact = effect on the end user x frequency of occurrence). I do not think think this is correct or what am I missing? Usually it is the priority which is the result of such a calculation (severe bug that occurs rarely is still severe but does not have to be fixed immediately). Also from this description, what is the difference between the effect on the end user and business impact?

    Read the article

  • Any way to tell apart a CPU defect from a mainboard defect?

    - by Pekka
    I have a fairly modern desktop computer, an AMD Athlon II X2 based silent PC, that does not work. When turned on, it will start physically (all fans are rotating, disks start up...) but not give a signal on any of the graphics ports (DVI, VGA, and HDMI, I tried all three). Also, the reset button does not seem to have any effect. I have stripped the mainboard bare of all SATA connections, extension cards, and the one 2GB RAM chip to eliminate them as the problem source, but to no avail, so I think it's fair to assume it's either the mainboard or the processor that are at fault. However, I have neither a replacement mainboard, nor a replacement processor handy to identify which one is broken. The cause of the defect is unknown, so for all I know, it could be both. Therefore, I'm reluctant to buy replacement hardware blindly before knowing more. Is there any way to further diagnose (or at least get some indication) which component is broken without buying replacement hardware?

    Read the article

  • Running a defect php file cause error 500

    - by John Brunner
    When I address a PHP file, I always get an error 500. I've looked up the logs of my Apache server, and this displays that some includes etc. in the PHP file address files which don't exist on the server. They don't exist because I'm just testing my PHP file. But could it be achieved that the server runs the php file in every case, even when something is wrong? Every 30 seconds an entry is made in the error_log file which says [Sat Jun 09 17:55:07 2012] [error] [client 10.224.55.160] File does not exist: /var/www/html/index.html ... but there IS an index.html?!

    Read the article

  • Possible defect with jQuery ':checked' selector (finding checked checkbox when there are none)

    - by Mphammad Ashour
    Found a strange thing. The following code is supposed to set a default value for a UI element based on whether one of a group of checkboxes (all having attribute name="privacy") is checked (in say, a form postback). If there is no value in the HTML sent by the server (the form is not a postback), the default value should be firstMenuItemKey. Otherwise, it should be the one checked in the underlying HTML. However, while this works on the first call to the URL that includes the form, a refresh of the page will set the value of defaultPrivacyValue to one of the privacy checkboxes'. I've checked that the server isn't checking the checkbox before the script runs (it's not). I've also checked whether somewhere else in the script is checking the checkbox (it's not). var defaultPrivacyValue = firstMenuItemKey; $('input[name=privacy]:checked').each(function() { defaultPrivacyValue = $(this).next().find('.name').text(); }); selectMenuItem(defaultPrivacyValue); When I chaged the selector to 'input[name=privacy][checked=checked]' it worked as expected. Is this a defect in the jQuery implementation of DOM retrieval based on the ':checked' selector???? I'm using jQuery 1.4.2. Thanks for any help you can give.

    Read the article

  • Bug severity classification issues

    - by KyleMinn
    In a book I have, there is a following classification of defect: Critical : A defect receives a “critical” severity level if one or more critical system functionalities are impaired by a defect with is impaired and there is no workaround. High: A defect receives a “high” severity level if some fundamental system functionalities are impaired but a workaround exists. Medium: A defect receives a “medium” severity level if no critical functionality is impaired and a workaround exists for the defect. Low: A defect receives a “low” severity level if the problem involves a cosmetic feature of the system. To be honest, I do not get it.. For example point 2. What if fundamental but not critical feature is impaired and there is NOT a workaround. The same for point 3: what if no critical functionality is affected but there is no workaround? E.g. optional field in the registration form does not work. No workaround but barely an issue.

    Read the article

  • Should I tell a departed coworker about their "sev 1" defect?

    - by noahz
    I had a co-worker leave our company recently. Before leaving, he coded a component that had a severe memory leak that caused a production outage (OutOfMemoryError in Java). The problem was essentially a HashMap that grew and never removed entries, and the solution was to replace the HashMap with a cache implementation. From a professional standpoint, I feel that I should let him know about the defect so he can learn from the error. On the other hand, once people leave a company, they often don't want to hear about legacy projects that they have left behind for bigger and better things. What is the general protocol for this sort of situation?

    Read the article

  • Lookback API: How long is a defect in a particular state?

    - by user1195996
    We have a state in our defects called "Need More Information". I would like to create a graph over time of how many defects are in that state at any particular period of time. I think I can get the info to do that with the Lookback API with the following query: my $find = { State => 'Need More Information', '_PreviousValues.State' => {'$ne' => 'Need More Information'}, _TypeHierarchy => -51006, # defect _ValidFrom => { '$gte' => '2012-09-01TZ', '$lt' => '2012-10-23TZ', } I thought that would give me back a list of all defect snapshots where the defect was transitioning into "Need More Information" state, but it does not (seems to list everything that was ever in "Need More Information" state. Technically what I need is a query that lists snapshots of any defects transitioning either TO OR FROM the "Need More Information" state, but since this simpler one did not seem to work as I expected, I thought I would ask first why the query above did not work the way I expected.

    Read the article

  • How do I left-click a Java Application on a WeTab running Ubuntu 12.10? (workaround defect in Onboard)

    - by Kat Amsterdam
    I installed Ubuntu 12.10 on my weTab. Everything works perfectly (albeit slowly) and I can touch and use every application execpt ones written in Java. When I start any Java Application the touchscreen does not recognize the left click. I believe it's a problem in OnBoard (the onscreen keyboard) because when I touch the mouse icon on the OnBoard and then the Java Application the left click works. This is very cumbersome for every click to first hit OnBoard mouse icon and then button in the Java app I would like to click. It defeats the purpose of a touchscreen. The Java Application is definitly touchable as it's running on 10 other machines with Elo Touchscreen. How do I get Ubuntu to recognize the left click in a java application automatically when I touch the screen? Or a way to dignose this so I can make a clear bug report? This happens in all the desktop environments (Gnome/Unity, XFCE4 and LXDE) I tried with openjdk-6-* and openjdk-7-* Stats: WeTab 32GB 3G 2GB RAM Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N450 @ 1.66GHz - 64-bit Ubuntu 12.10 - 64 bit Unity Desktop environment Xubuntu Desktop environment Lubuntu Desktop environment The real touchscreen driver from EETI (eGalaxy) (also didn't work with the Ubuntu standard touchscreen driver)

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >