Search Results

Search found 123 results on 5 pages for 'defects'.

Page 1/5 | 1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >

  • Reporting defects in Agile

    - by user3728779
    I am working in sprint. At the end of sprint I need to send a defect report per sprint. Considering the below scenario please let me know your views. Two teams(A & B) are working at different locations in Sprint-2 and I am a tester from Team-A and report the defects for the items developed by Team-A in each sprint Question 1. I reported few defects in Sprint-2 for the functionality developed by Team-B in previous sprint. Do I have to consider this as observation or defect and report to Team-A? 2. I reported 5 defects of Sprint-2 for the functionality developed by team-A. All the defects are fixed and closed by me in the same sprint. Before the end of sprint I observed 2 defects got reopened for some reason. Now the defect count should be 5 or 7(5+2) should be considered for this sprint? Thanks Khan

    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

  • How can QA prevent defects?

    - by user970696
    Also according to Software Testing By Srinisvasan Desikan, Gopalaswamy Ramesh or ISTQB text books. Quality assurance is e.g. reviewing products, inspections, walkthroughs to see if all standards are being followed. This is preventive activity. I cannot see how this can be preventive? For the references: defect prevention (Quality Assurance) Software Testing By Srinisvasan Desikan, Gopalaswamy Ramesh Quality Assurance (QA) tries to go one step further. Instead of concentrating on post- facto defect detection and correction, it focusses on the prevention of defects from the very start. Managing Global Software Projects - Page 110 QA deals with prevention of defects in the product being developed. Software Testing and Quality Assurance

    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

  • What are benefit/drawbacks of classifying defects during a peer code review

    - by DXM
    About 3 months ago, our engineering group rolled out Review Board to be used for all peer code reviews. Today, I had a discussion with one of the people involved in that process and found out that we are already looking for a replacement (possibly something commercial) because of several missing features. One of the features that is apparently asked by many people is the ability to classify/categorize each code review comment (i.e. is it a style issue, coding convention, resource leak, logic error, crash... whatever). For those teams that regularly practice code review, is this categorization a common practice? Do you do it? have you done it in the past? Is it good/bad? On one hand, it gives the team some more metrics and possibly will indicate more specific areas where developers may potentially need to be trained in (at least that seems to be the argument). Are there other benefits? And on the other hand, and this is my concern, is that it will slow down code review process that much more. As a team lead, I've done a fairly large share of reviews, and I've always liked the ability, to highlight a chunk of code, hammer off a comment and move on as fast as possible. Although I haven't tried it personally, I have a feeling that expanding that combo box every time and scrolling/searching for the right category would feel like something is tripping you. Also if we start keeping metrics on this stuff, my other concern is that valuable code review meeting time will be spent on arguing whether something is a logic error or if it should be classified as a crash.

    Read the article

  • Migrating test cases & defects from Quality Center to TFS 2008/2010

    - by stackoverflowuser
    Tool that can be used to migrate (or even better..synchronize) test cases and bugs between: TFS 2008 and Quality Center 9.2 (or later) TFS 2010 and Quality Center 9.2 (or later) I am aware of the following tools: Test Case Migrator (Excel/MHT) Tool TFS Bug Item Synchronizer 2.2 for Quality Center Also shai raiten mentions on his blog about QC 2 Team System 2010 migration tool that he has been working on and its done. But could not find any link for downloading the tool. http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/shair/archive/2009/12/31/quality-center-migration-to-team-system-2010-done.aspx Before jumping on coding with TFS SDK and QC components to come up with my own tool I need some inputs from the stackoverflow community.

    Read the article

  • Shopify JSONP issue in ajaxAPI

    - by Aaron U
    I'm getting some odd response back from shopify ajaxapi for jsonp. If you cURL a Shopify ajax api location http://storename.domain.com/cart.json?callback=handler you will get a jsonp response. But something is breaking the same request in browsers. It appears to be related to compression? Here are some responses from each browser when attempting to call the jsonp as documented. Firefox: The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because it uses an invalid or unsupported form of compression. Internet Explorer: Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage Chrome/Safari/Webkit: Cannot decode raw data, or failed (chrome) Attempted use via jquery: $.getJSON('http://storename.domain.com/cart.json?callback=?', function(data) { ... }); // Results in a failed request, viewable network request panels of dev tools Here is some output from cURL including response headers: $ curl -i http://storename.domain.com/cart.json?callback=CALLBACK_FUNC HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: nginx Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 13:48:29 GMT Content-Type: application/javascript; charset=utf-8 Transfer-Encoding: chunked Connection: keep-alive Status: 200 OK ETag: cachable:864076445587123764313132415008994143575 Cache-Control: max-age=0, private, must-revalidate X-Alternate-Cache-Key: cachable:11795444887523410552615529412743919200 X-Cache: hit, server X-Request-Id: a0c33a55230fe42bce79b462f6fe450d X-UA-Compatible: IE=Edge,chrome=1 Set-Cookie: _session_id=b6ace1d7b0dbedd37f7787d10e173131; path=/; HttpOnly X-Runtime: 0.033811 P3P: CP="NOI DSP COR NID ADMa OPTa OUR NOR" CALLBACK_FUNC({"token":null,"note":null,"attributes":{},"total_price":0,...}) Also related unanswered here: Shopify Ajax API JSONP supported? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Technical Integration Roadmap for OBI11g and Oracle Hyperion EPM System

    - by Mike.Hallett(at)Oracle-BI&EPM
    There is an excellent technical whitepaper on the integration roadmap for Oracle business intelligence enterprise edition and the Oracle Hyperion enterprise performance management system  (download at this link).  This document lists the integration points among all current releases of Oracle BI EE with EPM System releases: with live links to other relevant documentation also provided. You may also be interested in the overall Hyperion EPM System Documentation Resources which can be found from the Doc Portal. And, there are two new tools for EPM @ MyOracleSupport  {this needs your oracle logon} : Cumulative Feature Overview Tool This new tool offers a simple way to determine the features developed between releases to assist you in your upgrade implementations. The tool helps you to plan your upgrades by providing concise descriptions of new and enhanced solutions and functionality that are added between your current and target releases. With the Cumulative Feature Overview Tool, you can quickly and easily find information about new features for each EPM System product. Defects Fixed Finder Tool This new tool provides an efficient way to review the defects fixed in patch set updates, patch set exceptions, and patch sets for major releases, starting with Release 11.1.1. The tool helps you plan patch implementations by providing concise descriptions of defects fixed after your current release. The Defects Fixed Finder enables you to easily find information about defects fixed for each EPM System product.

    Read the article

  • SDK2 query for counting: which is more efficient?

    - by user1195996
    I have an app that is displaying metrics about defects in a project. I have the option of making one query that returns all the defects, and from that I can break out about four different metrics (How many defects escaped QA in 90 days, 180 days, and then the same metrics again but only counting sev1/sev2 defects). I could make four queries and limit the results to one so that I just get a count for each. Or I could make one query that encompass them all (all defects that escaped QA in 180 days) and then count up the difference. I'm figuring worst case, the number of defects that escaped QA in the last six months will generally be less than 100, certainly less 500 worst case. Which would you do-- four queryies with one result each, or one single query that on average might return 50, perhaps worst case 500? And I guess the key question is-- where are the inflections points? Perhaps I have more metrics tomorrow (who knows, 8?) and a different average defect counts. Is there a rule of thumb I could use to help choose which approach?

    Read the article

  • Using an Apt Repository for Paid Software Updates

    - by Scott Warren
    I'm trying to determine a way to distribute software updates for a hosted/on-site web application that may have weekly and/or monthly updates. I don't want the customers who use the on-site product to have to worry about updating it manually I just want it to download and install automatically ala Google Chrome. I'm planning on providing an OVF file with Ubuntu and the software installed and configured. My first thought on how to distributed software is to create six Apt repositories/channels (not sure which would be better at this point) that will be accessed through SSH using keys so if a customer doesn't renew their subscription we can disable their account: Beta - Used internally on test data to check the package for major defects. Internal - Used internally on live data to check the package for defects (dog fooding stage). External 1 - Deployed to 1% of our user base (randomly selected) to check for defects. External 9 - Deployed to 9% of our user base (ramdonly selected) to check for defects. External 90 - Deployed to the remaining 90% of users. Hosted - Deployed to the hosted environment. It will take a sign off at each stage to move into the next repository in case problems are reported. My questions to the community are: Has anyone tried something like this before? Can anyone see a downside to this type of a procedure? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Using an Apt Repository for Paid Software Updates

    - by Scott Warren
    I'm trying to determine a way to distribute software updates for a hosted/on-site web application that may have weekly and/or monthly updates. I don't want the customers who use the on-site product to have to worry about updating it manually I just want it to download and install automatically ala Google Chrome. I'm planning on providing an OVF file with Ubuntu and the software installed and configured. My first thought on how to distributed software is to create six Apt repositories/channels (not sure which would be better at this point) that will be accessed through SSH using keys so if a customer doesn't renew their subscription we can disable their account: Beta - Used internally on test data to check the package for major defects. Internal - Used internally on live data to check the package for defects (dog fooding stage). External 1 - Deployed to 1% of our user base (randomly selected) to check for defects. External 9 - Deployed to 9% of our user base (randomly selected) to check for defects. External 90 - Deployed to the remaining 90% of users. Hosted - Deployed to the hosted environment. It will take a sign off at each stage to move into the next repository in case problems are reported. My questions to the community are: Has anyone tried something like this before? Can anyone see a downside to this type of a procedure? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • How do you track bugs in your personal projects?

    - by bedwyr
    I'm trying to decide if I need to reassess my defect-tracking process for my home-grown projects. For the last several years, I really just track defects using TODO tags in the code, and keeping track of them in a specific view (I use Eclipse, which has a decent tagging system). Unfortunately, I'm starting to wonder if this system is unsustainable. The defects I find are typically associated with a snippet of code I'm working on; bugs which are not immediately understood tend to be forgotten, or ignored. I wrote an application for my wife which has had a severe defect for almost 9 months, and I keep forgetting to fix it. What mechanism do you use to track defects in your personal projects? Do you have a specific system, or a process for prioritizing and managing them?

    Read the article

  • How do you track bugs in your personal projects?

    - by bedwyr
    I'm trying to decide if I need to reassess my defect-tracking process for my home-grown projects. For the last several years, I really just track defects using TODO tags in the code, and keeping track of them in a specific view (I use Eclipse, which has a decent tagging system). Unfortunately, I'm starting to wonder if this system is unsustainable. The defects I find are typically associated with a snippet of code I'm working on; bugs which are not immediately understood tend to be forgotten, or ignored. I wrote an application for my wife which has had a severe defect for almost 9 months, and I keep forgetting to fix it. What mechanism do you use to track defects in your personal projects? Do you have a specific system, or a process for prioritizing and managing them?

    Read the article

  • Verification as QA - makes sense?

    - by user970696
    Preparing my thesis, I found another interesting discrepancy. While some books say verification it terms of static analysis of work products is quality control (looking for defects), other say it is actually quality assurance because the process of checking is decreasing the probability of real defects when these deliverables will be used for product manufacture. I hesitate as both seems to be correct: it is a way of checking for defects (deviation from requirements, design flaws etc.) so it looks like quality control, but also it is a process which does not have to be done and if done, can yield better quality.

    Read the article

  • Are there architecture smells?

    - by C. Ross
    There are tons of resources on the web referring to and listing code smells. However, I've never seen information on architectural smells. Is this defined somewhere, and is there a list available? Has any formal research been done into architecture defects, and their impact on project speed, defects, and the like? Edit: I wasn't really looking for a list in the answers, but documentation (on the web or in a book) about architecture smells.

    Read the article

  • Are there architecture smells?

    - by C. Ross
    There are tons of resources on the web referring to and listing code smells. However, I've never seen information on architectural smells. Is this defined somewhere, and is there a list available? Has any formal research been done into architecture defects, and their impact on project speed, defects, and the like? Edit: I wasn't really looking for a list in the answers, but documentation (on the web or in a book) about architecture smells.

    Read the article

  • Agile Development Requires Agile Support

    - by Matt Watson
    Agile developmentAgile development has become the standard methodology for application development. The days of long term planning with giant Gantt waterfall charts and detailed requirements is fading away. For years the product planning process frustrated product owners and businesses because no matter the plan, nothing ever went to plan. Agile development throws the detailed planning out the window and instead focuses on giving developers some basic requirements and pointing them in the right direction. Constant collaboration via quick iterations with the end users, product owners, and the development team helps ensure the project is done correctly.  The various agile development methodologies have helped greatly with creating products faster, but not without causing new problems. Complicated application deployments now occur weekly or monthly. Most of the products are web-based and deployed as a software service model. System performance and availability of these apps becomes mission critical. This is all much different from the old process of mailing new releases of client-server apps on CD once per quarter or year.The steady stream of new products and product enhancements puts a lot of pressure on IT operations to keep up with the software deployments and adding infrastructure capacity. The problem is most operations teams still move slowly thanks to change orders, documentation, procedures, testing and other processes. Operations can slow the process down and push back on the development team in some organizations. The DevOps movement is trying to solve some of these problems by integrating the development and operations teams more together. Rapid change introduces new problemsThe rapid product change ultimately creates some application problems along the way. Higher rates of change increase the likelihood of new application defects. Delivering applications as a software service also means that scalability of applications is critical. Development teams struggle to keep up with application defects and scalability concerns in their applications. Fixing application problems is a never ending job for agile development teams. Fixing problems before your customers do and fixing them quickly is critical. Most companies really struggle with this due to the divide between the development and operations groups. Fixing application problems typically requires querying databases, looking at log files, reviewing config files, reviewing error logs and other similar tasks. It becomes difficult to work on new features when your lead developers are working on defects from the last product version. Developers need more visibilityThe problem is most developers are not given access to see server and application information in the production environments. The operations team doesn’t trust giving all the developers the keys to the kingdom to log in to production and poke around the servers. The challenge is either give them no access, or potentially too much access. Those with access can still waste time figuring out the location of the application and how to connect to it over VPN. In addition, reproducing problems in test environments takes too much time and isn't always possible. System administrators spend a lot of time helping developers track down server information. Most companies give key developers access to all of the production resources so they can help resolve application defects. The problem is only those key people have access and they become a bottleneck. They end up spending 25-50% of their time on a daily basis trying to solve application issues because they are the only ones with access. These key employees’ time is best spent on strategic new projects, not addressing application defects. This job should fall to entry level developers, provided they have access to all the information they need to troubleshoot the problems.The solution to agile application support is giving all the developers limited access to the production environment and all the server information they need to see. Some companies create their own solutions internally to collect log files, centralize errors or other things to address the problem. Some developers even have access to server monitoring or other tools. But they key is giving them access to everything they need so they can see the full picture and giving access to the whole team. Giving access to everyone scales up the application support team and creates collaboration around providing improved application support.Stackify enables agile application supportStackify has created a solution that can give all developers a secure and read only view of the entire production server environment without console or remote desktop access.They provide a web application that provides real time visibility to the important information that developers need to see. An application centric view enables them to see all of their apps across multiple datacenters and environments. They don’t need to know where the application is deployed, just the name of the application to find it and dig in to see more. All your developers can see server health, application health, log files, config files, windows event viewer, deployment history, application notes, and much more. They can receive email and text alerts when problems arise and even safely query your production databases.Stackify enables companies that do agile development to scale up their application support team by getting more team members involved. The lead developers can spend more time on new projects. Application issues can be fixed quicker than ever. Operations can spend less time helping developers collect server information. Agile application support starts with Stackify. Visit Stackify.com to learn more.

    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

  • 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

  • Unit testing and Test Driven Development questions

    - by Theomax
    I'm working on an ASP.NET MVC website which performs relatively complex calculations as one of its functions. This functionality was developed some time ago (before I started working on the website) and defects have occurred whereby the calculations are not being calculated properly (basically these calculations are applied to each user which has certain flags on their record etc). Note; these defects have only been observed by users thus far, and not yet investigated in code while debugging. My questions are: Because the existing unit tests all pass and therefore do not indicate that the defects that have been reported exist; does this suggest the original code that was implemented is incorrect? i.e either the requirements were incorrect and were coded accordingly or just not coded as they were supposed to be coded? If I use the TDD approach, would I disgregard the existing unit tests as they don't show there are any problems with the calculations functionality - and I start by making some failing unit tests which test/prove there are these problems occuring, and then add code to make them pass? Note; if it's simply a bug that is occurring that can be found while debugging the code, do the unit tests need to be updated since they are already passing?

    Read the article

  • 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

  • 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

  • unit level testing, agile, and refactoring

    - by dsollen
    I'm working on a very agile development system, a small number of people with my doing the vast majority of progaming myself. I've gotten to the testing phase and find myself writing mostly functional level testing, which I should in theory be leavning for our tester (in practice I don't entirely...trust our tester to detect and identify defects enough to leave him the sole writter of functional tests). In theory what I should be writing is Unit level tests. However, I'm not sure it's worth the expense. Unit testing takes some time to do, more then functional testing since I have to set up mocks and plugs into smaller units that weren't design to run in issolation. More importantly, I find I refactor and redesign heavily-part of this is due to my inherriting code that needed heavy redesign and is still being cleaned up, but even once I've finished removing parts that need work I'm sure in the act of expanding the code I'll still do a decent amount of refactoring and redesign. It feels as if I will break my unit tests, forcing wasted time to refactor them as well, often due to unit test, by definition, having to be coupled so closely to the code structure. So.is it worth all the wasted time when functional tests, that will never break when I refactor/redesign, should find most defects? Do unit tests really provide that much extra defect detetection over through functional? and how does one create good unit tests that work with very quick and agile code that is modified rapidly? ps, I would be fine/happy with links to anything one considers an excellent resource for how to 'do' unit testing in a highly changing enviroment. edit: to clarify I am doing a bit of very unoffical TDD, I just seem to be writing tests on what would be considered a functional level rather then unit level. I think part of this is becaus I own nearly all of the project I don't feel I need to limit the scope as much; and part of it is that it's daunting to think of trying to go back and retroactively add the unit tests needed to cover enough code that I can feel comfortable testing only a unit without the full functionality and trust that unit still works with the rest of the units.

    Read the article

  • QA - Developer communication

    - by exiter2000
    I am a developer and have worked at this company 4~5 years by now. We have been practicing scrum for about 2 years. I think, I have been worked well with QAs. I believe QAs/developers/technical writers are all one team. We are also actively hiring new team members. As a legacy member of the team, I have faced to assist new member(including developers and testers) with my business knowledge. We work on 2 weeks base scrum. I usually deliver my user story completely by the first date of second week and do some qa build with partial functionality of my user story so that QA has a good idea about my implementation and flow. Recently, I have met some QAs. In first week, the QAs do not talk... In stand up meeting, they say they are developing test cases regardless I deliver the user story or not. In second week, I do not have a single defect till Thursday afternoon and suddenly I have a major defect with several minor UI defect, which I delivered one week ago. Or I have one or two minor defects on second week however major defects on Thursday afternoon or Friday morning. This eventually make the story rolls over to the next sprint. Major defect takes time to fix and more importantly it would trigger the regression test for the story... Even if I worked Thursday evening and fixed it, the testing will not finish. And this happens multiple times with certain QAs. As a same team member, I talked to the QAs if they could test major defect with higher priority... Rejected... Because I do not understand QA process.. So I asked roughly how many major test cases are covered so far in the stand up meeting on 2nd week Wednesday.. The response is I should not ask this to the QA in the stand up meeting... What do I do?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5  | Next Page >