Sua equipe está dividida sobre a gravidade de bugs em testes de controle de qualidade. Como garantir que todos vejam olho no olho?

To ensure your team agrees on bug severity in QA testing, establish clear and documented criteria for each severity level, conduct training sessions, form a triage committee to make final decisions, standardize bug reporting, and hold regular triage meetings. Encourage open communication and collaboration, and periodically review and adjust the criteria as needed.

To ensure alignment on bug severity in QA testing, establish clear, objective criteria for each severity level and ensure the entire team is trained on these standards. Facilitate regular meetings to review and discuss discrepancies, promoting open communication and understanding of different perspectives. Use examples of past bugs to illustrate the criteria and encourage collaboration, fostering a shared commitment to quality and consistency.

To ensure alignment on bug severity, establish clear, objective criteria for categorizing bugs (e.g., critical, major, minor) based on impact, reproducibility, and affected functionality. Conduct training sessions to ensure everyone understands these criteria. Facilitate open discussions to review and agree on severity levels for contentious bugs. Document and share examples of different severities for reference. Foster a collaborative environment where team members can voice opinions and reach consensus.

Me he dado cuenta que no todo el mundo ve con la misma intensidad un error. He aprendido que definir claramente la gravedad de los errores es importante para asegurar que todo el equipo esté alineado en sus prioridades: •Establezco una escala de gravedad clara y comprensible. •Describo ejemplos específicos para cada nivel de gravedad. •Aseguro que todos entiendan el impacto de cada tipo de error. Esto proporciona una base común que ayuda a todos a evaluar los errores de manera uniforme para poner el foco de la misma forma.

Severity should be very clear in definition, there should be a graded system, (say 0 - 5) with 0 being show-stoppers and 5 being extremely minor with examples of bugs of each severity to help train new QA Analysts coming onto the project. To keep aligned on bugs there should be a dashboard on stuff like Jira that track number of issues, old issues, fixed issues, severity, etc. Alongside this there should be meetings each week ideally to discuss any repetitive bugs if you have a large team. It is vital to have a dashboard set up for something like this in my opinion, as it gives the developers a great idea of what needs fixing most, from P0 issues to P5 issues, as well as gives them an idea of the workload, allowing better planning.

Una rúbrica detallada es una herramienta invaluable en la que todos podemos tener una puntucion exacta de la gravedad con lo que te proporciona una visión matemática que está fuera de interpretaciones: Lo que hago para que la rubrica funcione es: •Creo una rúbrica que incluye criterios específicos para evaluar la gravedad de los errores. •Comparto la rúbrica con todo el equipo y la uso como referencia constante. •Actualizo la rúbrica regularmente para reflejar cualquier cambio en las prioridades o en el producto. Esto garantiza que todos estén evaluando los errores con los mismos parámetros. Ademas uso una herramienta compartida (Smarsheet) en la que todos tenemos acceso y trabajamos a tiempo real con cuadros de mando.

First and foremost in maintaining standard in the bug severity is defining the severity. The procedure should completely describe th3 severity, usually a scoring guide in form of a rubric. A rubric entails all the complete assessment how to assign to a bug and complete numerical perspective for the assignment.

There's multiple criteria which can be used to create a scoring guide and assess the severity of a bug, such as impact on function, reproducability, impact on scope, workarounds, user experience, security, and performance. Of course, this all ties to the stage at hand: a bug might be important, but not urgent, i.e. while it's in the development stage, whereas the same bug might be incredibly urgent while in production. Reaching a common understanding with key stakeholders, which criteria are to be prioritized, and which are secondary, helps build a scoring guide that can be relied upon by all team members.

Regularly reviewing processes, practices, and outcomes is crucial for any team or project to maintain effectiveness and adapt to changes. It involves systematically assessing how well tasks are being performed, identifying areas for improvement, and making necessary adjustments to optimize performance. By reviewing regularly, teams can catch and address issues early, refine strategies based on lessons learned, and ensure alignment with goals and objectives. This ongoing evaluation fosters a culture of continuous improvement, encourages innovation, and enhances overall efficiency and effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes.

Revisar la evaluación de errores regularmente es clave para mantener la coherencia y lo consigo de la siguiente forma: •Programo reuniones periódicas para revisar y discutir los errores recientes. •Comparo cómo cada miembro del equipo ha evaluado la gravedad de los errores. •Ajusto y realineo las evaluaciones según sea necesario. Estas revisiones regulares ayudan a identificar y corregir cualquier discrepancia en la evaluación de la gravedad y se nota muchísimo cuando después de varias reuniones del equipo se unifican criterios.

Regular reviews for bugs are vital as without those reviews you *will* lose track of bugs and forget about them, even if they are in your bug tracking software. During these meetings which should probably be held fortnightly everyone on the team should be aligned with what issues have appeared, what the worst ones are, and what the next steps are in resolving these issues or investigating further. If your QA team isn't reviewing your bug database then you will have an extraordinarily poorly performing QA department. It is one of the most vital things in QA in my opinion.

Without open dialouge you do not have a functioning QA department, at all. If testers are afraid of reporting issues or if developers are afraid of recieving them then there is a major problem that needs to be addressed and resolved. Open dialouge is the cornerstone of QA even more so, it keeps you in the loop constantly with your fellow QA members, builds friendships and trust, and makes sure that no mistakes slip through from a single person making a mistake. Without it you simply have to wing it and hope for the best, which is not a good idea for proper QA work as you need to be methodical and precise.

Un diálogo abierto y honesto es imprescindible para resolver diferencias y en mi empresa lo tengo claro: •Animo a todos los miembros del equipo a expresar sus opiniones y preocupaciones. •Intento crear un ambiente seguro donde todos se sientan cómodos compartiendo sus puntos de vista. •Facilito debates constructivos para llegar a un consenso sobre la gravedad de los errores. Fomentar este tipo de comunicación abierta ayuda a asegurar que todos estén en la misma página y trabajen juntos de manera.

Ensuring everyone sees eye to eye on bug severity in QA testing involves establishing clear guidelines, fostering open communication, using collaborative tools, implementing review processes, providing training, encouraging a data-driven approach, and promoting a collaborative culture. By following these steps, you can create a structured and transparent process that minimizes disagreements and enhances the overall quality of your software.