How can I represent where a defect was re-tested?

Question

Hello,
I would like some advice about retesting defect.

When the test team are going through a test run and create a defect linked to the test run in Xray a created by link is created automatically to the test, requirement and the sub test execution task. This show us where the defect was created. However, I am not sure how to represent where the defect was re-tested once fixed.

If we create a tested by link on the defect and link it to the test, in the original test run where the defect was created the tested by link is displayed there too rather than just on the new test run.

Please can someone advise how we can represent where a defect was re-tested i.e. in which test run, execution task and what link to use? I could not find any documentation on online which advises what the best practice is for this. All we would like to do is represent where a defect was created and where is was re-tested.

Thank you very much.

h kay · Answer

Thank you again for your reply. The link you sent reminded me where I got the idea to link my defect with a 'tested by' link to the test by looking at the diagram.

I will have another read of this link and if I have any further questions I will raise a call with the support team.

Thank you very much for your time.

Sergio Freire - Xblend · Answer

Hi,

well, I understand your point but in our case, it gives us a unified approach to handle user stories and defects; we cover both them with tests. Sometimes a defect is created during a test run but it was more like a side defect or a defect that was raised whenever doing some sort of exploratory testing even though you were executing some high-level steps from a traditional step-based test case.

Going to your questions:

1) I meant that there is no explicit concept for re-testing a defect; you can run a test multiple times though... what that test addresses depend on its scope and how you wish to link it; therefore my previous suggestion of linking explicit and tailored tests to defects and treat them similarly to user stories.

2) and 3) please have a look here.

If shouldnt create a "tested by" issue link between Test Execution and other issues.

If you define your  "Defect" issue type to be handled as a "requirement issue type", then it means that you can cover it with test cases.

The setting name ("requirement issue types") is probably not the best, as "coverable issue types" would be something more accurate.

If you do this, you can go to a Defect issue, and choose Create Test... which will create the Test and implicitly the "tests/tested by" issue link.

If you still have doubts, maybe the best is to reach out to Xray Support team so they can setup a call with your perhaps.

h kay · Answer

Thank you for the reply on this.

We created a defect custom issue type and this sits under the 'Defect Issue Type' rather than a bug because bugs for us can be known issues found in Live so we want to treat them as a requirement as well as a user story. We have kept defects out of being treated like a requirement because we have the view that the test for the requirements should cover the steps of the defect therefore do not need a new test.

Please can you confirm for me so we get our process right using your expert opinion:

1. When re-testing a defect we should not add a tested by link to the test because like you said there is no concept of re-testing a defect?

2. Would it be ok to link the defect to just the execution task with the 'tested by' link which will be the test run it was 're-tested' in or would like have an affect on reporting further down the line?

3. When should the 'tested by' link be used in your opinion and on which issue types?

Thank you very much.