Is it possible to generate defect stories when using Scrum, and there is no story already created?

Question

Let's say you are working on a piece of legacy code that was written before your company started using Agile methodology such as Scrum.

Now let's say that you find an error in this area that needs to be fixed, and there has never been a history for this function. Everyone in the team knows what this feature is, and how it should behave, but just the story associated with it.

Now in the current sprint, you should work on this shortcoming, because Marketing and Support are tired of solving this problem.

Are you creating a retrospective story for this defect to be associated with? Do you rewrite your defect as a story and change the formatting so that it looks like a story? If you do not create a story, do you get points for a defect? If you create a story, do you get points to correct the defect (through the points of the story)?

What is the best way to deal with this situation?

Update: let's say that suddenly the installation process started on the blue screen of the system on 64-bit Windows 7, and there was always a requirement that the application was installed on all Windows platforms. A new problem may arise due to Service Pack 1 or something like that.

Answer 1

Are you creating a retrospective story for this defect to be associated with?

Yes. It is also worth considering to make sure everyone agrees with this story.

If this is a hassle-free, but annoying interface, then you are really changing the workflow, and you need to remember it as the right story.

If there is an error, then there are unit tests that should have found the error (but not). This is not like your situation, but as a rule, incomplete unit tests do not detect an error. It is also very important to extend unit tests (after fixing the history).

Do you rewrite your defect as a story and change the formatting so that it looks like a story?

Not really. A defect is just a defect, regardless of whether the story exists.

Defects disappear. There is no story.

If you create a story, do you get points to correct the defect (through the points of the story)?

Why not?

Edit The problem with story points is difficult. Ideally, points track work done and value created. History == effort == points. But problems arise in reuse processing, release and recycling.

You have several unrelated issues: effort, quality, and value. Points can track one of them. He cannot track others.

If you think that speed should reflect effort, then you cannot take points because of errors or changes in requirements. It does not track the created value and cannot be used for this.

If you think that speed should keep track of the value, then you should remove points. This does not track efforts because the work was completed, but the loan for it was deleted.

Recycling is complicated. Errors and changes in requirements are one and the same thing; they are redoing. You have a whole range of candidates.

• "Simple" errors when the implementation is incorrect, but the story is "correct." Ideally, this does not take into account speed. Right?

• Errors of the "incomplete history", where the implementation is correct, but the history omitted some important (and technical) details. Hm. Who's guilty? What speed measurement should be punished for this?

  What are we measuring? Effort? Work is done. Cost? Value has not been created.

• Errors of the “wrong story”, where the implementation is correct, but the story was a bad idea from the very beginning, and no one caught it. This can be called a "lying user script." It happens. Ideally, this applies to speed. Users lied. But how can you distinguish this from any other alteration? What is a "rule"?

• "History bugs fixed," where the implementation is correct, and the story was right. But the general context has changed, and history must change. It is simply an “improvement” or “adaptation” and looks like a new job. Except, of course, this is not a complete job, is it? It might just be customizing existing code, so you don't want to overestimate this with the full value created.

  What are we measuring? Effort? Some were made, but not so much. Cost? Value has been created.

Bottom line . Glasses are a political weapon and do not measure very much. Either effort or value, but not both. And not very good.

Answer 2

Scrum only has user stories. The defect, as a function, is the request of the product owner that some change will be made to the system to provide a new business value.

If a defect is reported after release, this should fall behind as a new story. This is great to keep track of some notes about the details of the defect (who reported it, the environment, etc.). As a story, it must be evaluated by the team before being selected for sprinting using software.

If a defect is reported during the sprint, and the decision of the PO (and team) is that it is low-level and does not lead to a history failure, this defect will fall back in time as a new history for future consideration.

In my teams, we often find that user stories based on defects come in sizes of 0.5-1 points — not always, but often enough. We found that choosing a set of 0.5-1 point histories can lead to some speed noise in the sprint, as each evaluation story builds in some estimation error. We collect several stories together, if there are very few, and create an assessment of the cluster of stories. We found that sometimes due to the overlap of various corrections that the score is different - (5) a 1-point history can be as little as 3 points for a cluster.

Answer 3

There are many ways to do this. Usually I create an original story and an error. I give the initial 0 plot points, because there is no work on it, and the remaining work should always be the main focus of the plot points, not the “team points."

IMHO, you do not "score" plot points. What you do is eat them during the sprint. If you are a good boy and eat it all, you can have dessert (more items). If not, then you eat leftovers in the following sprint :-)

Update: You can also write only a defect, since you really did not implement the original story in the sprint (or in the current project, for that matter)

Answer 4

I would suggest keeping things simple. I do not see a real, valuable difference between the story and the correction of the flaw. Both of them change the system; both if they bring some value to the user after completion; both of them have value; both are more important than some stories (and defects), and less than others.

So, if he walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... I will call it the user's story.

Treat it like any story (you could write it as "in order to maintain my high marks as a fire fox user, I want JIRA 234 to be fixed").

Thus, the software can decide when to deal with the error, like any other task.

Hope this helps, Assaf.

Answer 5

TL; DR:

The story is necessary in order to catch a claim (since you would capture any claim) with a defect that you want to correct. A story is needed to write a test against, so you know when the defect is fixed.

Long version:

You have a defect.

How did you find out which part of the functions is corrupted?

Functionality that is defective should be documented as a requirement or have some kind of specification somewhere; whether on paper, in a letter or in some opinion.

So, IMHO, it makes sense to capture it as a History.

Why?

Because you need a story, everything you do must be against history. How do you know when you fixed this defect?

The only way to find out is through some kind of test. How do you know when the test passed?

The defect will tell you that you give the test criteria, you won’t tell when it will pass. Note. If you have a description of what should happen in the error report, then this information can be written as [part of] the story and taken as the criteria for passing for the test.

So, to find out if your test passed, to know that part of the functionality is no longer defective, you need a requirement on how this test will pass, you must fix this requirement as History, for example, you capture all your other requirements.