Software development comes up with a list of tasks and challenges. One of the most challenging or more appropriately; one of the most complex tasks of a software development life-cycle is to detect the bugs, errors, and defects. Normally detection or hunting of defects is essential in the life-cycle of software product development to strengthen the product quality and to make it up to the mark to better serve the users. With the daily advancements in technology, customers or users of software products and applications have become tech-savvy. They are intelligent enough to spot the flaws in a particular product while comparing it to another product, easily available in the market. That is why users’ expectations and requirements for more advanced features and best quality software products are increasingly high these days than before. To serve or to meet the users’ expectations it has been made inevitable by the organizations to test the software products or apps before they go live or release them in the market.
Software testing is a hero for software development firms. It makes it possible for the organizations to achieve the level of productivity that they want or wish to achieve and also enable the users to experience the best quality software product. But the best quality software product means that it has the least possible errors or defects in it. Defect tracking or spotting is a highly sensitive yet challenging job for manual testers. That’s the reason now the market is chock-full of a variety of defect tracking tools to enable ease and efficiency for the quality assurance personnel.
But why hunting or detecting defects in the software products and apps is a pain in the neck for testers? If you are also thinking about the reasons to answer these questions then take a chill pill! Because below are some of the reasons that would make it clear for you to understand why is it hard to detect defects;
Looking for errors but not seeing them – Ever wondered why sometimes that last look on the notes, just before the exam begins is something you always draw a blank on if it appears in the questionnaire? That’s because we are not paying attention and just sifting(read, looking) through the notes. Similarly, sometimes team members become so familiar with the nature of systems and software that they overlook some of the issues or defects that arise, and these defects later on become a pain in the neck for the same team members. Looking and seeing are two members of the same family but the seeing is one of the intelligent or clever ones. So it’s better to adopt the trait of seeing or observing software when you are in the testing process without just paying a look at the overall product.
Inappropriate interpreting requirements – Sometimes team members misinterpret information or requirements because they are not communicated to them. It’s the responsibility of the team members to develop a culture of effective two-way communication, to avoid the discrepancy of interpreting requirements incorrectly.
Errors in the coding stage – When authors or developers write codes, it’s usually the very first stage of a software development life-cycle. If this initial stage would have plenty of errors in it and if no proper fixtures have been made at the same stage, the chances of bugs and defects later in the life-cycle are extremely high. But that does not mean that authors or developers are responsible for these types of mistakes. They are humans too. And humans are prone to errors. But this lies under the responsibility of code reviewers. An organization must have some reviewers that must provide potential suggestions to fix the errors but in a light and friendly manner. Reviewing of codes is like editing is to writing.
Inappropriate type of testing – When deciding which approach to testing will be incorporated organizations and teams must be very careful. Why? Because careful planning is better than to face obstacles later on. A blend of manual testing along with automation testing is one of the healthy and good decisions an organization would make. Tools are best at making the processes more efficient while humans are always best to dig out the least possible issues or defects in the system or software with their unique thinking abilities or curious nature.
If you want to get rid of the pain of finding or spotting errors and defects, all you have to do is to complete your homework first i.e plan or decide which testing approach to follow, empower your code reviewers to avoid mistakes in the very first stage of SDLC, keenly observe the processes, and try to strengthen your internal communication to avoid the misinterpretation of important data & information.