Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I found a lot of questions asking for the best tool, but none asking for the features, you really need? And what features you never really needed?
(I caught myself to be comparing tools on feature matrices. Something I hate, because in the end I will be using only the 3-4 most important features and leave the rest untouched.)
It need to:
collect bugs
order bugs on priority/severity/due date etc
assign bugs to developers
track a bug history
link similar bugs together
link bugs to customers
link solved bugs to releases
provide enough information or a reference to get the information to reproduce the bug
usable by more than one developer
bug status need to be accessible by the client that reported the bug.
And there are more.
Simple end user data entry. Without this you won't have bugs entered, which equals worthless bug tool.
I can't answer this question for you, because I can't predict what is important for you, or what your situation is:
Are you on a large or small development team, or are you a one-man shop?
Would it be useful to have a system in place where you could have your application automatically send in trouble reports that create incidents in your bug tracking software?
Is being able to predict a release schedule important, or is this just something for a side project you're doing in your spare time?
Is integration with source control important?
In reality, you're the only one who can answer what features are required for you.
Those are the 3 must-have features I find most important:
Web interface so people can follow-up
Source control integration, otherwise it's really hard to track who did what and deploy patches
Configurable workflow with email notifications
Things I would really like to see:
1) Voting - i.e. how many customers/users does this bug hurt?
2) Severity/priority/whatever - the distinction between these terms is subtle and normally (IMHO) insignificant, but you have to have some idea of how important the bug is. Most tools have this, but overcomplicate it.
3) Dependencies - both internal (on other bugs in the same system) and external (external libraries, software, etc). Most bugs have this in reality, but it's not normally expressible in the database, leading to long, pointless debates at triage time.
Things I think are largely pointless:
1) Any extensive questionnaires - any bug-tracker that asks too many questions will just get bad data. That's worse than none.
2) Controversial, but compulsory daily/weekly/whatever email notifications. They just get filed as spam/ignored/filtered out. If developers should be fixing bugs, and aren't, that's a management problem. Software cannot fix this.
Need:
Email notification.
Status
Group notify
Group rights
Web interface
Easy / fast interface
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
We do distributed agile development and could really us a solution like story cards on a wall/board, only on a webpage where you could easily drag and drop them. Any suggestions? Thanks.
Trello is perfect for something like this. It's very simple, yet flexible. It's like a simpler version of PivotalTracker, mentioned above.
Its been a while since this was asked, but the best option out there in my opinion is http://www.Sprint.ly
Really powerful. Really beautiful. Really User Story focused!
I've used Eidos. I think it's the best if you want to use in Agile project (I've used it for real 3-4 projects for the real customer). Eidos team keep developing to serve human's need in Agile project. I think they invite beta users to test now. If you have problems about co-located team, this tool is quite useful (I prefer physical thing anyway if my team is co-located)
Me using Eidos, it's easier than Jira and focus more in Agile than Trello.
Not drag and drop, but I find basecamp very nice for agile development.
http://basecamphq.com
See if scrumy suits.
It's a tool roughly based on scrum. You create stories from them assign tasks to a story board assign them to people. In fact it is exactly what you've asked for! :)
You can set up a free project and play around with it.
Screenshot here
For User Stories, I find Pivotal Tracker to be awesome. It automatically fits user stories into each iteration based on computed velocity. Implements just enough workflow so everyone understands what they're responsible for. And is one of the cleanest, nicest implementations I've seen. (Although AgileZen is up there too... that app is gorgeous - but I just didn't gel with it in the same way)
However the drag-drop in PivotalTracker is limited to User Story-level objects. You don't move tasks around. For a more this-sprint/iteration task board, Scrumy is probably the one to go for.
Mingle may be something to explore and see if it'll work for your situation.
maybe a Bit oversized for your purposes, but targetprocess is a nice full blown project Management Software. It has a nice Kanban Board which fulfills your stroyboard requirement including Drag&Drop. It is free for up to 5Users.
I have used xPlanner before successfully.
http://www.xplanner.org/
Also, I have seen peole use Google Sites for similar effect. Either is drag and drop though
You could try using http://www.cardmeeting.com/
Take a look at Assembla tickets and its agile planner, it is a way to go.
Drag & Drop for:
to make tickets and user-stories
to sort tickets inside a milestone
to sort user stories
to move stories/tickets between milestones
sorting will be available on Monday(26 Oct) with next release as they promised.
Finally distributed agile development is a way that Assembla is doing their client jobs.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm interested in evaluating bug trackers, but I wanted to back up and figure out what sorts of criteria were most important in bug software. So far things I've thought of include:
integration with source control
usability
basic features (email notifications, rss, case states)
customization
advanced features (reporting, visualizations)
stability
cost
IDE integration
Any ideas?
Ease of use
This should, in my opinion, be on the top of your list of features to evaluate against. You want inhouse developers and testers to take any and all things they notice in the software and plug it into the tool, even if they're currently working on something else. For this to happen, the tool must be so easy to use that it stays out of the way and just takes your data. The worst bugs are those you don't know about.
A tool that has 15+ fields on the screen, where 10+ are required in order to just be able to submit the issue, is not such a system. With such a system, you'll get postit notes from testers to developers about the little things.
When evaluating BugTracker X, which bugtracker do the developers of BugTracker X use?
customizable workflows (from "open" to "in work" to "resolved" to "closed")
fine granular access control
There was a recent thread on Hacker News about this exact question. Lots of good stuff in there!
An API. Mandatory.
You MUST be able to catch and automatically submit bugs into your bug tracker from applications running in the field.
(Copy/Pasted from "Lasse V. Karlsen"'s answer)
You want inhouse developers and testers to take any and all things they notice in the software and plug it into the tool, even if they're currently working on something else. For this to happen, the tool must be so easy to use that it stays out of the way and just takes your data. The worst bugs are those you don't know about.
Even good, conscientious testers, if they are focused on testing component A but happened to stumble on a bug in component B, might not actually enter that bug if there is a lot of friction in the bug tracker. Friction means, required fields. It's not that the testers are bad or lazy - it's just how the human mind works. We focus. We don't see the guy in the gorilla suit.
The Joel/FogBugz philosophy of NO required fields is the right one (Also the philosophy of my own BugTracker.NET). You almost always can gather the details later - what os, what version, what browser, etc.
Also, take a look at "Bug Shooting", if your app has a GUI. You want to make it as easy as possible for the testers to take a screenshot and get it into the bug tracker, and that's a great tool for it. Pick a tracker that works with Bug Shooting or has its own dedicated screen shot tool.
Distribution. My version control system is distributed, why shouldn't my bugtracker? If I fix a bug on the train, why should I be able to make the fix but not record it?
Probably everything mentioned by others, plus some from me.
If you have long term big project, separate testing team that will do functional tests, you should take few additional things into consideration:
- can bugs be linked to test cases (and more precisely to given run)?
- can defect tracking system exchange data with test management system?
- can it produce (useful) reports?
- can bugs be grouped by release?
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
While this doesn't apply to my present situation, I'm sure we've all been there before. You're a Java developer who's been asked to develop an app in C#, or you're a ASP.NET developer asked to do something in ASP.NET MVC, or a PHP developer with the opportunity to do a Rails or Django site.
Fundamentally, if you're a competent programmer, these sorts of platform shifts shouldn't really be a problem. Given enough time, you can expect to become as proficient as you were on your old platform.
However, if this is a freelance project for a client, does it seem at all unethical to be learning this platform on their dime? Assuming said client doesn't give you an unlimited amount of time to finish the project, there are going to be compromises and possible quality issues due to your inexperience.
That said, you have to start somewhere and not everyone has the luxury of spare time to tinker with new languages/platforms. Sometimes its necessary to just bite the bullet try and plan things intelligently and just get it done and get paid.
Does this seem unethical? Would accepting a lower rate make it more ethical?
I see no ethical problem here if you disclose that your primary expertise is on platforms other than the one that they're hiring you to develop on.
Assuming you're billing hourly:
If you're an experienced developer then you should be able to tell what is costing you time due to learning the new platform versus solving the problem at hand.
Keep track of what you do (using a screencap application could help here) and if it's pure research (reading articles, looking up documentation) then don't bill it. Also, if you're fixing a bug that turns out to be a newbie mistake (such as misunderstanding some information), then don't bill that. The rest of your time will have been spent in productive work for the client, and that should be what is billed.
It sort of goes without saying, but your client would be the one to determine if they even want to go with you as a consultant if you don't know the language/platform they want you to work on, and they would also be the ones to tell you whether or not they will pay for you to "learn as you code". You just need to be upfront and honest with everything from the start. Don't act like you know a platform/language if you don't.
No - its not unethical. Our profession demands that we learn something new on a constant basis. This is why we can be expected to charge / get paid what we do. Employers are often willing to not only buy books for us, but also pay for certifications, seminars, and any time we spend at said extended learning. The rationality behind it is that if we learn something new, there is inevitably a payoff for them (be-it efficiency, performance, etc).
I suspect that you'll argue that its different because you are freelancing so I'll pose the question - why is it any different? Your employer is your client - if you feel that they'll gain benefit from said platform over another then you are doing them a service and should be compensated as such.
It sounds like you're all talking of "Time and Materials" projects where the client pays you however much time you take to complete the job. On a project like that I can see how this comes into play and I would recommend being honest.
Most of the projects I work on are "Fixed Price". The customer gives us an idea of what they want. We then work up a "Fixed Price" quote. If the customer doesn't like the numbers they go elsewhere, if they're ok with the numbers then they agree to the price. Whether we have to learn something to get the job done or not the customer's price remains the same. In this situation it doesn't matter. The customer either agrees to the price or not and it doesn't matter how much time it takes you.
I've been in a situation like this with adobe air. Yes it's not exactly like jumping from Java to .NET or from PHP to Python since I already knew javascript. Actually I was affraid that I'd come off as too expensive and gave a below margin price for the project. But didn't regret it because the client was very satisfied and returned with another 2 projects later.
If the price you offer is acceptable to your client and you are absolutely sure you can deliver a high quality product there's nothing unethical with it.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I spent a lot of time recently reading about debugging. One of the aspects that was continually referenced was not just a bug-tracking system, but a bug-solving process. I read about people writing down takes on the problem(that did or didn't work), tests that would determine if a given take on the fix would work or not, etc.
So I am thinking, "hey, this is a good idea"
I use Mantis right now, and it doesn't seem to have that capability(without abusing its fields). Mantis works great as a bug logger. But I'm looking for something more sophisticated in interface, I think.
Example
Suppose my bug was "Pants fall off". Then I want to log this information as...
"Pants fall off; Feb 32, 2009, 25:61; when I walked into a room, my pants fell off!"
Developer 1...
Hypothesis 1: Pants too big.
Test 1:Put on a belt.
Possible Solution 1: Buy a belt.
Result = ?? Result ???
Test 2: Put on your kid sister's pants.
Possible Solution 2: Steal into her room and take all her pants while she's at school!
Result = ??, date/time = ???
Developer 2...
Hypothesis 2: Your pants have holes in them.
Test 1: Shine a light on them.
Possibile Solution: Buy new pants.
Result = ???, date/time = ???
Now, this is a silly example. But I think it would be great to have as a software tool.
Does such exist, and if so, what's it called?
Trust me: you really don't want to maintain your bugs, that's why you don't find "Bug Maintenance Systems" :-)
Sorry... couldn't resist. Regarding the actual content of your question: I personally just keep track of all that information in the comment history of the ticket. Mostly I use trac for its simplicity, but also the capability to link into sources if required (at least on the file level, I wish it would grok code so you can point into the AST).
You could use Testopia, which is an extension of Bugzilla. This, of course, would also mean you would need to use Bugzilla.
Taken from the Testopia website:
Testopia is a test case management extension for Bugzilla. It is designed to be a generic tool for tracking test cases, allowing for testing organizations to integrate bug reporting with their test case run results. Though it is designed with software testing in mind, it can be used to track testing on virtually anything in the engineering process.
We also use Mantis, and like Peter Becker describes, we use the comments to describe the work on a bug. This usually works, because most bugs don't have such a long history.
If work on a bug becomes so complex it needs its own meetings and meeting notes, we usually create a task in our main work planning system and do the discussion there (linking from Mantis). That at least works for us.
At any rate, I'd be wary of a system that tries to explicitly support a certain workflow, as these also tend to lock you into the workflow they expect. An in bughunting, the workflow can vary a lot from bug to bug...
Finally, note that Mantis also lets you edit your comments. So you can change old comments to avoid cluttering the bug report.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Maybe my understanding of agile development isn't as good as it should be, but I'm curious how an agile developer would potentially use off-the-shelf (OTS) software when the requirements and knowledge of what the final system should be are changing as rapidly as I understand them to (often after each iteration of development).
I see two situations that are of particular interest to me:
(1) An OTS system meets the initial set of requirements with little to no modification, other than potential integration into an existing system. However, within a few iterations of development, this system no longer meets the needs without rewriting the core code. The developers must choose to either spend additional time learning the core code behind this OTS software or throw it away and build from scratch. Either would have a drastic impact on development time and project cost.
(2) The initial needs are not like any existing OTS system available, however, in the end when the customer accepts the product, it ends up being much like existing solutions due to requirement additions and subtractions. If the developers had more requirements and spent more time working on them up front, this solution could have been used instead of building again. The project was delivered, but later and at a higher cost than necessary.
As a software engineer, part of my responsibilities (as I have been taught), are to deliver high-quality software to the customer on time at the lowest possible cost (among other things). Agile development allows for high-quality software, but in some cases, it might not be apparent that there are better alternatives until it is too late and too much money has been spent.
My questions are:
How does off-the-shelf software fit in with agile development?
How do the agile manager and agile developer deal with these cases?
What do the agile paradigms say about these cases?
Scenario1:
This can occur regardless off the OTS nature of the component. Agile does not mean near-sighted.. you'd need to know the big chunks.. the framework bits and spend thinking time on it beforehand. That said, you can only build to what you know .. Delay only till the last responsible moment.Then you need to pick one of the alternatives and start on it. (I'd Avoid third party application unless the cost of developing it in-house is infeasible.. but that's just me). Prototype multiple solutions to check feasibility with list of known requirements. Keep things loosely coupled (replacable), easy to change and full tested. If you reach the fork of keep hacking or rewrite, you'd need to think of which has better value for the business and pick that option. It's comes down 'Now that we're here, what's the best we can do now?'
Scenario2:
This can happen although the chances are slim compared to the team spending 2-3 months trying to get the requirements 'finalized' only to find that the market needs or customer minds have changed and 'Now we want it this way'. Once again, its a question of what is the point of time till which you are prepared to investigate and explore before committing on a path of action. Decide wisely with whatever information you have upto that point.. Hindsight is always 20-20 but the customers wont wait forever. You can't wait till the point of time where the requirements coalesce to fit a known OTS component :)
Agile says Do whatever makes sense and strip out the non-value-adding activities :) Agile is no magic bullet. just my 2 agile cents :)
Not a strict answer per se, but I think that using off the shelf software as a component in a software solution can be very beneficial if:
It's data is open, e.g. an open database or a web service to interact with it
The off the shelf system can customised easily using a similar programming paradigm to the rest of your solution
It can be seamlessly adapted to the rest of your work-flow
I'm a big fan of not re-inventing the wheel, and using your development skills to design the 'glue' between off-the-shelf solutions can be a big win.
Remember 'open' is the important part, and a vendor will often tout their solution as open when it isn't really.
I think I read somewhere that if during an iteration you discover that you have more than 20% more work that you initially thought then you should abandon the sprint and start planning a new one taking into account the additional work.
So this would mean replanning with the business to see if they still want to go ahead with the original requirements now that you know more.
At our company we also make use of prototyping before the sprint to try and identify these kind of situations before they arise on a sprint. Although of course that still may not identify the kind of situation that you describe.
C2 wiki discussion: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?BuyDontBuild