Deep Dive Example 2
Eng.QAIntegrationTesting
Failure | Link | 5 Why | Root Cause | Solution |
1. JVHOPST-5815 failed quality review | 1. Why ticket failed to pass review? Protractor Typescript Rule PR9 (Negative impact by changes on existing code) was violated. 2. Why PR9 was claimed to be violated? Due to the usage of Random helper class. 3. Why Random helper class shouldn't be used? It is expected to use PageHelper.getUniqueId() for generation of random strings. 4. Why it was used? There is no enforcement for IC's to follow XO coding standards | no enforcement to assure that submitted code follows XO codings standards | Use following script (screen) to check if PR9: “random string” rule is not violated in your proposed code. Implementation plan: 1. Manager to prepare initial set of rules to comply with. Update script. Share with the team (use most common errors T8W). (1d) 2. IC’s to install PHP interpreter + scan all files before sending for review (5m) 3. Include results of the tool to JIRA ticket (to be checked by Quality Enforcement Team) Impact on quality: > reduction of 39.47% of failures (calculation) > improvement of FTAR by 2.73% (calculation) | |
2. MOBADM-3843 failed quality review | 1. Why ticket failed to pass review? Pull Request was not containing all required information 2. Why pull request was not containing all required information? IC failed to provide required information 3. Why IC failed to provide required information? There is no enforcement of checklist for pull requests. | no enforcement to assure that pull request data is complete. | Introduce new IQB.New.2. JIRA will require update of new “Pull Request link” field while doing transition from “In progress” to “In review” state. Correctness of link could be assured by webhook (GitHub-JIRA). Implementation plan: 1. Manager to create webhook and new field to JIRA (2h) Impact on quality: > reduction of 20% of failures (calculation) > improvement of FTAR by 1.38% (calculation) | |
3. JVHOPST-5656 failed quality review | 1. Why ticket failed to pass review? Typescript Code Rules were violated. 2. Why Code Standards were violated? Code was too long (more than 500 lines) (generic rules for coding practices) 3. Why monolithic class was committed? IC failed to recognize this as an error 4.. Why? There is no enforcement for IC's to follow XO coding standards | no enforcement to assure that submitted code follows XO codings standards | Use following script (screen) to check if “monolithic file” rule is not violated in your proposed code. Implementation plan: 1. Manager to prepare initial set of rules to comply with. Update script. Share with the team (use most common errors T8W). (1d) 2. IC’s to install PHP interpreter + scan all files before sending for review (5m) 3. Include results of the tool to JIRA ticket (to be checked by Quality Enforcement Team) Impact on quality: > reduction of 39.47% of failures (calculation) > improvement of FTAR T8W by 2.73% (calculation) |
Last updated