The bug life cycle is the process that every discovered defect goes through, from detection to closure. In IT, the bug life cycle has been formalized to speed up defect processing, minimize risks, and ensure transparency in work management.
Background:
Early bug tracking systems only allowed for the logging of errors. As software complexity increased, there was a demand for structured tracking of bug statuses and documentation of all stages of their processing.
Problem:
Without formal stages, defects may get lost, "hang", or remain open even if they have been fixed. Misunderstandings between QA and developers can also occur due to a lack of transparency regarding who should do what.
Solution:
Standardizing stages (for example: New, Open, Assign, In Progress, Fixed, Retest, Closed, Reopened) and documenting actions at each stage helps organize the defect processing workflow and make it transparent.
Key features:
Can a bug be closed if it is reproduced by the tester but not by the developer?
No, the bug must be agreed upon by both parties and reproduced according to the steps written in the bug report.
What should be done if the response to a bug is 'Won't Fix'?
QA should clarify the reason for refusal. If the reason is justified (low severity, alignment with requirements), the bug can be closed with a comment.
Is QA required to recreate the bug if the issue reappears after its closure?
No, the bug should be moved to the 'Reopened' status and additional reproduction details should be added.
The company only utilized the basic functionality of the bug journal. After fixing a defect, the developer marked it as resolved, the tester did not conduct a retest, and bugs made it back into the release.
Pros:
Cons:
The team implemented a standard bug life cycle with mandatory retesting and documentation of closure reasons before release.
Pros:
Cons: