The kind of testers I'm dealing w/ right now:

Until fairly recently, they thought it was a good idea to keep retesting stale && untouched bug reports to see whether an issue is still present, then leave a comment.

Imagine being assigned as a watcher to a report, but keep seeing comments made by testers akin to:

- version 1: issue is still present.
- version 2: issue is still present.
- version 3: issue is still present.
- version 4: issue is still present.

Which was true for some 90-95% of the cases.

How retarded does a person have to be to think that this is a good idea?

I say it's a great way to piss somebody off.

Reminds me of movies w/ scenes where there is this annoying brat in the back seat of a car asking 'Are we there, yet?' over && over again.

Once a report is up, just be fucking patient && wait until someone replies!

"this is broken until further notice so no need to test"

I used tags to denote which department had to deal with each ticket next. so there was a testing tag

@jestdotty Makes sense.

It's maybe stupid to mention every time, but to test it - some other bug fix could've fixed that bug too, they were technical related. So, i can see benefit in it.

@retoor I would argue that bug reports are a form of communication between at least two parties.

0. There's a problem so a bug report gets created.

1. Person on the other end checks the report, makes an assessment:

- legit bug,

- !a bug - as designed,

- no time / too trivial - won't fix.

&& takes an action:

- report gets closed,

- or assigned.

2. If legit bug, the assignee fixes the problem, marks issue as resolved.

3. Report gets verified by the tester:

- if fixed - report gets closed,

- else - reopen, goto 2.

If there's no communication, then that's a problem.

If a report looks like no one's worked on it, then blindly rechecking it is a waste of time.

In rare situations - yes, the issue might be fixed, but it is almost always the case that somebody had been working on the affected area or an area adjacent to it.

If there is no info akin to 'we're working on x, so recheck everything related to the feature' we're once again dealing w/ lack of communication.

@D-4got10-01 use software that forces the communication like a development flow in Jira. Like - it's not allowed to do work outside of it. What to do or what is done about an issue is clear from its status. That's communication as well. But I'm sure you guys already have such system. Just decline all work that is not done not conforming that system. A issue that isn't fixed for example would not get tested if you follow that system based on the not fixed status.

But God, what did I see people failing to work according protocol for years. How hard is it. Issue wrong status according to do? Do what is needed to get it in the right status to do what you want with it and else request a workflow change.

@retoor Yup. We have such system.

Just many stupid testers.

I've also seen many people fail miserably working w/ simple workflows, though.

At previous job, I had this fight in a report w/ one of the programmers, who chose to do this stupid thing:

P: * Adds comment along the lines of 'Won't fix.' *

P: * Marks the report as 'Resolved' w/ Resolution 'Fixed' *

Me: * Reopen the issue adding comment '!Fixed' *.

Reason? He was unwilling to mark something as 'Won't fix' because he was afraid of getting blamed for it.

Fuck logic.

@D-4got10-01 sounds like he's reeling from encounters with toxic management in the past. or maybe there was an actual concern at that company?

@jestdotty No, !really.

Can't remember what the issue was about but it was fixable, although the pool of affected users might've been limited.

For whatever reason he didn't want to fix it, so left a comment stating that this wouldn't get fixed, but the report's status clearly contradicted that.

When !sticking to proper procedure, i.e. like he wanted to mark the report as fixed, it's a pain to find reports like that.

Also, let's say at a later time another person encounters this same issue.

They would search for it in the bug tracker && if they found the report closed w/ status 'fixed', any possible blame would be put on the one who closed it as such.

Anyway, there was much simpler option - he should've bounced the report to PM or someone else who deals w/ decisions, like his lead.

Let that person take the responsibility.

Eventually he did that, but !before he was presented w/ that option.

@D-4got10-01 but the person who closed it wouldn't be the one blamed. you find out why he closed it and you'll see the programmer lied to him?

the fact you think the closer would be blamed makes me think toxic management...

@jestdotty I guess it depends on the point of view.

I'd say that if a person closes a report, then they accept the current state of things.

If the report is marked as resolved w/ a resolution 'fixed', then it should be logical that the closing of such a report means the problem has indeed been fixed.

Digging through the comments isn't something done by default.

But again - it makes no sense to leave a comment saying it's a won't fix, but mark the resolution as fixed.

If he truly wanted to cover his ass, he should've bounced the report to a decision-maker from the get go, avoiding all the subsequent problems that followed ensued.