How can you ensure that defects are validated and verified before closing them?

Validating and verifying defects before closure is crucial to maintain software quality. Implement stringent testing protocols covering diverse scenarios and edge cases. Define clear criteria for defect resolution and confirm their reproducibility to ensure accurate fixes. Perform regression tests to prevent new issues from arising post-fix. Involve stakeholders for collaborative review and documentation of the resolution process. Automate checks where feasible to streamline validation. Effective defect validation and verification ensure robust software, bolstering user trust. "Defect validation and verification are keystones in delivering quality software. Let's prioritize these practices for reliable software solutions." #SoftwareQuality

Dans notre processus de gestion des défauts, nous nous assurons de mener une validation approfondie avant de clore tout défaut. Les développeurs et les testeurs collaborent étroitement pour confirmer que la correction est conforme aux spécifications initiales. Des revues de code et des tests d'acceptation sont effectués de manière systématique pour garantir l'intégrité des corrections. Nous favorisons une communication ouverte pour résoudre tout problème résiduel, assurant ainsi une résolution complète. Les outils de suivi des bogues documentent scrupuleusement les étapes de validation et de vérification, assurant une transparence totale.

You must be familiar with the defect life cycle Thats the key to understand, how to report How to test How to retest Verify and validate Then keen towards closure

Establish a comprehensive Definition of Done that includes specific criteria for defect validation and verification. Clearly communicate the DoD to the entire team, including developers, testers, and any other relevant stakeholders. Ensure that there are associated test cases for each reported defect. Validate the defect fix by executing relevant test cases and ensuring that the fix resolves the issue without introducing new problems. Incorporate defect-related test cases into your regression test suite to ensure that the fixes do not adversely impact other areas of the application. Execute regression tests after the defect fix to catch any unintended side effects.

To Understand the defect one should Understand the software testing lifecycle, the goals and requirements. They should be able to Understand the plans and actions required to fix the defect. Minimising the change in plan will help prevent the defect. Whenever the new updates are made you have to test the changes occurring in the current script and update them. Test them again after the defect is fixed. Understanding the priorities and severity of the test will help in fixing the defects along with adding the attachments and screen shots whever necessary.

Establish clear acceptance criteria for each defect. These criteria outline what constitutes a successfully resolved issue. This provides a benchmark for validation. Encourage collaboration among team members. Conduct peer reviews of the fix and the validation process to gain different perspectives and ensure thoroughness.

By following the verification process, you can ensure that the defect fix meets the specified requirements, is free from unintended consequences, and contributes to the overall stability and reliability of the system or application.

Don't forget to double-check the solution to make sure that it ticks all the boxes - meets the requirements, is safe, and adds stability to the system. It's always better to be safe than sorry

Verification methodology is crucial for testing cycle. We need to make sure we are testing ln the exact same conditions of the bug that was opened. After verification its better to give a ss or video of the the verification, anf write all the env details in the ticket.

To ensure defects are properly handled, establish clear criteria in the Definition of Done (DoD), develop comprehensive test cases, and conduct regression testing.

In my experience, when retesting a defect, the process involves thoroughly testing the reported issue using the steps, environment, and test data specified in the defect report. Additionally, it's beneficial to review any attached files for better understanding. To ensure that the fix did not introduce new issues, use diverse test data. To maintain a clear and organized record, it is crucial to document the date and build version in which the defect was retested. Finally, the test case status should be updated accordingly to reflect the outcomes of the retesting process.

By rigorously retesting the fixed defect, you ensure that the reported issue has been adequately addressed and that the software maintains its overall integrity and functionality.

By following the systematic validation process, you can ensure that the reported defect has been successfully resolved and that the software is in a reliable and functional state.

Validating defect resolution is a crucial step in software development lifecycle to ensure that identified defects undergo both verification & validation before closure. Verification confirms that the reported issues have been technically addressed according to specifications. On the other hand, validation involves assessing whether the resolution aligns with user expectations & the overall project requirements. This dual approach ensures that the fix not only corrects the technical problem but also meets enduser needs. By rigorously validating and verifying defect resolutions before closure, teams can enhance the overall quality of the software, reducing the likelihood of regression issues & ensuring more robust & reliable final product.

Closing a defect is not an easy task, you must make sure the defect is verified, best way to accomplish this is by reproducing the defect on another system which doesn't have the fix.

In my experience, improving software quality involves recognizing patterns in defects. Begin by establishing clear guidelines for grouping similar issues. Regularly review data to identify recurring problems and common themes. Prioritize and gain an understanding of how these issues affect your software. Encourage collaboration between developers and testers to address issues collectively, focusing on elevating quality in areas where defects tend to cluster. Taking a practical approach to addressing defect clusters contributes to fostering a culture of continuous improvement aligned with your quality goals.

Techniquement on fait des Rex on inscrivant toutes les étapes, les heures d activités, les délai de résolution, les outils utilisés tout ce qui a servi toutes les méthodes utilisées tous les gestes sont notés afin de faire évoluer, afin de combler ou corriger et d améliorer un ensemble de parametres, un cahier des charges qui tiens les retour d expérience et tout ce qui a été embarqué utilise et mise en place lors des tests. Tout ceci afin de ne pas reproduire les même erreurs, de fa?on à pouvoir anticiper et assurer au mieux les futurs test et actions menées..

Each defect opened is an opportunity to learn more about : 1. The product and its functionality 2. Better QA testing methods.

When ensuring defects are validated and verified before closure, it's essential to consider the effectiveness of communication channels between development and testing teams. Encouraging open and transparent communication, providing detailed documentation, and facilitating collaborative discussions can further enhance the validation process. Additionally, establishing clear acceptance criteria and leveraging automated testing tools can contribute to thorough defect validation, ensuring that fixes align with requirements and preventing the recurrence of similar issues.

From my point of view the defect should met the acceptance criteria (the specific conditions that must be met to consider the bug resolved). These conditions can vary depending on the project or organization, but they typically include the following: 1. The bug has been reproduced and its cause has been identified. 2. A fix for the bug has been implemented. 3. The fix has been tested to ensure it resolves the bug without causing other issues. 4. The fix has been reviewed and approved (if necessary). 5. The fix has been merged into the main codebase and deployed to the relevant environments. 6. The original reporter of the bug (if applicable) has been notified and confirms the issue is resolved. 7. Documentation has been updated if necessary

Before closing the defect the i will and will ask my fellows to follow below points 1. Try to replicate the defect before giving the build. 2. Once the build is given check weather the defect is fixed or not 3. Try to run regression suite around that feature 4. Do some monkey testing in the fix and the effected functionality 5. Similarly perform some some monkey test around application manually to ensure that the defect doesn't cascade with other 6. Write some additional test cases around the bug and document the bug so that in feature if it comes it is easy for fix

In short,when a defect is identified,a root cause analysis has to be performed by coordinating between the testers and developers.Once the issue is reproduced,the developers provide the fix ,the testers retest the defect,check if regression has to be performed or not,once that is sorted mark the defect to fix passed status ,complete the TIA(Both dev and test)comment on the defect and close the defect.

My opinion here is from the hardware (production quality and customer complaints) side. So, how can you ensure defects are validated and verified before they are closed? Ask the testing (or quality engineering/warranty return) team for a report at the end of their testing session, ask for photos and oscilloscope captures (for electronic control units for example), ask for graphics of temperatures and input/output signals behaviors for temperature tests or X-ray photos taken with the inaccessible areas of the piece. Make sure they covered a wide range of tests in order to identify the defect and check, like a detective, the evidences. This way, you can confirm they found the real problem, and your extra opinion won't hurt.