Browse Prior Art Database

Managing Test bugs (mostly Test Escapes and Test Gaps)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000227597D
Publication Date: 2013-May-08
Document File: 6 page(s) / 144K

Publishing Venue

The IP.com Prior Art Database

Abstract

Disclosed is a bug management method that sees and tracks Test Escapes (externally tackled) and Test Gaps (internally found) as bugs that are reported on Test.

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 31% of the total text.

Page 01 of 6

Managing Test bugs (mostly Test Escapes and Test Gaps)

The industry tends to look at Dev bug needs (including fixes and quality improvements), while overlooking Test bug

needs. Test Gaps (internally found) and Test Escapes (externally tackled) are not easy to track or manage. The vast majority of the industry partially tracks Test Escapes (having high managerial focus) in varied ways, as opposed to Test Gaps (having low managerial focus, if any). Test Escapes are typically looked at from an Escape analysis point of view (e.g., why the test did not catch this, etc.), while less attention is given to assure resolving these Escapes from a Test

perspective (since Dev are those required to supply the fixes). Test Gaps, on the other hand, are far less 'appealing' for documentation and follow-up, typically existing in the minds of several individuals with practically no formal process yielding the prioritized resolution over time.

With existing solutions, Test Escapes and Test Gaps can be managed by:


• Almost any Test management tool, typically lacking the desired Test bug flow implementation and also posing accessibility problem to non Test folks


• Microsoft Excel* typically used for Test Escapes only, not following any flow and yields storage (duplication) & coherency chaos


• Any other non-DB applications (Wiki / other), which are either too open to mandate any flow or have storage or

coherency problems


• Or, a bug management tool, which requires some refinement to scope test specific needs in comparison to

development needs when working with 'regular' code bugs. Note that those that do use a bug management tool to 'track' Test Escapes tend to do so by adding specific Test Escape related fields over existing Dev code bugs,

which does not really enable following the required Test bug flow.

The invented method sees and tracks Test Escapes (externally tackled) and Test Gaps (internally found) as bugs reported on Test. While Test Escapes are real issues already tackled in the field, Test Gaps are not just Test coverage improvements, as these can be "time bombs" (i.e., "What wasn't tested, doesn't work."). Thus, bug management tools are best fit to manage such Test bugs with minor modifications, easily enabling the following:


 Documentation of Test Escapes and Test Gaps


 Following the Test bugs flow (requires additional dedicated fields)


 Prioritization between these Test bugs and estimation of the required effort


 Suggestion for which release timeframe each such Test bug is required or desired to be resolved


 Reporting on status and future plans

1


Page 02 of 6

Similarly, this solution can be refined to cover Test Plan (coverage) revisions, Test tool (capabilities) change needs, and any other Test bug/improvement needs

Managing Quality Assurance Test Gaps (QTGs) does not waste time if used properly and can assist all Test and non-Test stakeholders. If a Test bug (Test Gap, Test Escape, or other) is known, then it sho...