How do we keep a track of a defect that is repeated

How do we keep a track of a defect that is repeated? Is there any mechanism to know that it is repeated?

[B]Question asked by visitor Asha[/b]

Ya Asha ,
It's the question which strike in my mind also many times.
If you are following the right process then there are less chance of repetition as we use a good defect tracking tool also.
But for small company it's a problem and I am also looking for the solution.
According to me a sophisticated defect tracking tool can be solution.

Or
Before opening a bug report, you should query existing bugs to be sure the bug you discovered is not already reported.

[QUOTE=Geek_Guest;14365]How do we keep a track of a defect that is repeated? Is there any mechanism to know that it is repeated?

[B]Question asked by visitor Asha[/b][/QUOTE]

Yes! Its difficult to track manually. The best way is to assign the identifier. like the bug id in that particular module, scenario...etc. So that again whenever you find a bug you can just gothru whether its logged in this particular module, Scenario...etc whatever.

As someone above said that bug tracking tool can control this. Again in tool also same methodology is followed. We can log a bug repetitively unless u verify the same in that particular module or functional area.

Duplication can be avoided only when verification process is in right place. This is the ultimate solution for this question.

Hope you got the answer for the question.

Arun

i was under the impression that during the bug lifecycle we give status to each and every defect,there by keeping track of them with the help of a defect id given to a particular defect.the bugs can be classified as:

new:a defect found for the first time

open:a defect which is under rectification

reopen:a defect which persists after rectification

fixed/reject/closed:fixed means exactly that,when a defect is fixed. closed status is given when we find a defect that repeatedly persists,but which does not affect the functionality of that particular module where as reject status is given when it does not affect the functionality of other modules and the system as a whole.

agree or disagree????

Is this question talking about a duplicate defect or is it talking about the bug occuring again even after the earlier defect is resolved by the dev team ??? :confused:

Both these cases can be handled with the defect status column...

If the bug is reoccuring... the defect will be set to "Re-Open" state.

If the defect is duplicate... the dev team can discard one of them by marking its status as "Duplicate". :eek:

[QUOTE=smartarun;14714]

As someone above said that bug tracking tool can control this. Again in tool also same methodology is followed. We can log a bug repetitively unless u verify the same in that particular module or functional area.

Duplication can be avoided only when verification process is in right place. This is the ultimate solution for this question.



Arun[/QUOTE]

Dear Arun,
I am not saying that a bug tracking tool is a solution, I said in my earlier post that a [b]sophisticated tool [/b]may be the solution, not that it is a confirmed solution.

And one more thing, If you have read the complete post, I myself have said that you should query the already posted bugs before posting new, I think this is the same thing to which you say verification.

Anyway, keep it up.

[QUOTE=sowmyadesaraju;14734]i was under the impression that during the bug lifecycle we give status to each and every defect,there by keeping track of them with the help of a defect id given to a particular defect.the bugs can be classified as:

new:a defect found for the first time

open:a defect which is under rectification

reopen:a defect which persists after rectification

fixed/reject/closed:fixed means exactly that,when a defect is fixed. closed status is given when we find a defect that repeatedly persists,but which does not affect the functionality of that particular module where as reject status is given when it does not affect the functionality of other modules and the system as a whole.

agree or disagree????[/QUOTE]

Disagree.
Because it can't solve the problem of redundant bug posting.

[QUOTE=sutnarcha;14762]Is this question talking about a duplicate defect or is it talking about the bug occuring again even after the earlier defect is resolved by the dev team ??? :confused:

Both these cases can be handled with the defect status column...

If the bug is reoccuring... the defect will be set to "Re-Open" state.

If the defect is duplicate... the dev team can discard one of them by marking its status as "Duplicate". :eek:[/QUOTE]

Hi sutnarcha,

Sometimes a bug is open and then resolved and closed.

But later after some time; it occurs again, It that case, more than 99% tester post it as a new bug, as I feel myself also.

what exactly do you mean by redundant bug posting?

Yes i do agree jainbrijesh.

But the verification word is bit appropriate word instead of saying in similar meaning.

If we have a right review and verification process then we can avoidsuch things.

Arun*