Makes testers have a "right to see" reproductions of their own bugs
under review
Afgan Sofyan
Reproduction is the only reason if our bugs acceptable or not as an information to be forwarded to customer.
But sometimes the bugs condition 'quite unique' and only ONE/Not-At-All positive reproduction that could be seen. Unfortunately, the testers couldn't really see them, and turned out:
- For negative reproduction: Some Testers want to confirm them via cycle chat, that's not simple (delay respond or not respond at all from respective testers).
- For positive reproduction: Testers could have a "blind trust" that mislead them to keep the bugs report, even when the reproduction is invalid.
Thus, with all those concerns I suggest for testers to have a "right to see" reproductions of their own bugs, as information to decide validity of their findings.
That's I believe will help to improve performance scores of the testers. Thank you.
S
Sablina
Hello, Afgan!
Thank you for your commitment to improving our platform and for sharing your thoughtful suggestions.
We completely understand testers’ concerns regarding bug rejections related to reproduction issues. Please note, however, that a Team Leader does not reject a bug solely because it has negative reproductions. A bug can be rejected if the Team Leader is unable to reproduce it personally.
Our Team Leaders have a wide range of devices and always recheck reported bugs carefully. The number of negative reproductions has minimal influence on whether a bug is forwarded to the customer.
Additionally, the Team Leader verifies whether each reproducer followed the bug’s conditions correctly, completed all required steps, and adhered to the necessary testing guidelines.
Allowing testers to view reproductions of their own bugs would essentially duplicate the Team Leader’s work and could create unnecessary confusion in the chat. Moreover, reproduction data is considered internal information and, therefore, is not publicly accessible.
We appreciate your understanding and continued efforts to help make our platform better for everyone.
Tetiana Yezerska
under review
Tetiana Yezerska
Hello! Thanks for your suggestion!
Could you please provide more details about the benefit of seeing reproductions to your bug, and in case you see it what your next actions expected?
Thanks!
Afgan Sofyan
Tetiana Yezerska Hello, thank you for the respond!
For your questions, the benefits what I could imagine are:
- We become more "objective and confident" to keep our finding bugs to be reviewed, even though only ONE "knowingly valid" positive reproduction executed (assumes the issue is valid by cycle scope).
- We have a chance to correct the "invalid" reproduction by "directly asking" the testers (via chat 'at the moment'), either to "support" our own bug reports or just being kindly to help the other testers.
- We could evaluate "more objectives" when we found all reproductions are negative.
In the case all negative reproductions are "valid," we would review our bug steps (instead of clarifying reproduction steps when we couldn't see them):
- If we eventually found crucial missing steps, we would update the steps and ask other testers to update their reproductions (via chat 'at the moment'). With this we'll give more accurate information for customers.
- If we didn't find any missing steps, while the valid negative reproductions in "similar environment," we could "evidently more content" to accept the "local issue" and delete the reports. This way, we keep our performance score from possibly getting worse.
(For all negative reproductions because of "different environment", that is different issue)
These are benefits I could imagine. I realized the new problems will arise when the current problems are distinguished, so the priority values should be considered carefully. Thank you!