6 Most Popular Bug Tracking Tools

There is one major challenge that comes with every new app or website, something that tech-savvy people – name “a bug”. And those bugs are giving developers a tough time. Those bugs are the reason, why we require using bug tracking systems to find, document and resolve these bugs. The Quality Assurance Market has seen the emergence of the series of defect management or bug tracking systems tools over the years.

Let’s have a glance at the best Bug Tracking Tools:

  • Trac- Bug Tracking Tool
Trac- Bug Tracking Tool
Trac

It is an open-source and an improved wiki and issue tracking system for particular software development projects. It has been adopted by various enterprises for software development projects. It offers a simple to use web interface. It can be used for documents and management. Trac integrates with high version control systems considering Git & Subversion. It also allows wiki markup in issue descriptions and commit messages and to create relations & references between tasks, bugs, changesets, files, and wiki pages. Trac is a lightweight and stable system; however, you may lose out some of the pioneering features offered by other bug tracking systems.

Type: Free Version

  • Bugzilla- Bug Tracking Tool
Bugzilla- Bug Tracking Tool
Bugzilla

It is a Mozilla Foundation supported web-based bug tracker and pioneering testing tool that permits its users to log and track flaws, bugs, and defects in their product effectively. It is a matured feature-rich app with great features like advanced search capabilities, scheduled reports, bug lists in multiple formats, the capability to file/ modify bugs via email, patch viewer, time tracking, automatic duplicate bug detection, request system, private attachment, and comments, etc. Bugzilla is a widely adapted product used by quite a few big open source projects such as Linux Kernel dev team, Apache dev team, GNOME dev team, and renowned companies like Facebook, NASA, Open Office, etc. and are one of the well-known bug tracking systems.

Type: Free Version

  • ReQtest- Bug Tracking Tool
ReQtest- Bug Tracking Tool
ReQtest

It is an external cloud-based testing tool with bug tracker capacity. ReQtest also offers all-extensive test management features which give the testing team the capacity to detect the advancement of testing in real-time. Its “Agile board” offers an effective method to visualize tasks and collaborate smoothly. It is famous amongst UAT testers and is mostly preferred by big corporations and small teams as well, as it has no hassles associating installation or maintenance.

Type– Free & Commercial versions (Free ReQtest Trial for 10 Days)

  • BugHerd- Bug Tracking Tool
BugHerd- Bug Tracking Tool
BugHerd

It is a web-based bug tracking project management tool. Specifically designed and framed for developers and designers, glitches are well-organized around four major listings: Backlog, To Do, and Doing & Done – enable the testing team to keep up with the status of diverse tasks. The sophisticated tool captures a screenshot of the roadblocks counting the exact HTML component being annotated. When already installed tools such as Pivotal Tracker or Redmine? BugHerd can be incorporated with any of these.

Type– Free Version

  • JIRA- Bug Tracking Tool
JIRA- Bug Tracking Tool
JIRA

It is a popular tool developed by Australian Company Atlassian. JIRA is used for issue tracking, bug tracking, and project management. The fundamental use of this tool is to track the issue, defects, flaws, and bugs related to your software and Mobile applications.

Type– Free & Commercial Versions ( 7-day free trial)

  • Mantis- Bug Tracking Tool
Mantis- Bug Tracking Tool
Mantis

This tool can be simple to use. Mantis not only comes as a web app but possess its own mobile version. Mantis works with several databases like PostgreSQL, MS SQL, MySQL, and integrated with applications like the wiki, RSS feeds, chat, time tracking, and many more.

Type– Free & Commercial Versions (30 days free trial)

These are top 6 defects/ bug tracking tools available in the market– with some of them being an ideal fit for you and the others won’t cut it. In order to choose the accurate tool, it’s vital to consider several important factors like a team’s size and capabilities you require.

Now, which is your most preferred Bug Tracking Tool from the list? If you are using any other defect tracker tool which isn’t listed here. Please share your thoughts in the comments section.

Will CI/CD Change the Testing Scenario Like Agile Did?

We have been seeing a lot of instances in recent times in which the terms Agile, DevOps and CI/CD are used interchangeably. Agility, CI/CD, and DevOps are varied tools, important in its own right and all are used for their intended purposes, plus the outcomes are transformational. Agile, now referred to by some of its manifesto authors as the term agility, is focused on removing process barriers and enabling the key folk like developers and customers, to collaborate more closely on accelerating delivery. Even though agility has come to mean distinct things over the past few decades, its fundamentals remain the same: collaborate closely with customers, remove process barriers, produce working software speedily, and respond to (rather than resist) change. Agile began as a product development innovation as it sparked a corporate approach and process revolution. Agile development laid the logical groundwork for the Lean movement in entrepreneurship, which pushed mainstream business leaders to systematize and manage their business model & product development work around a sequence of experiments, testing significant hypothesis along the way. Agile initially grab attention and turn out popular in the startup world, but soon were embraced by famous business leaders around the world.

Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery
Continuous Integration/Continuous Delivery

According to the new study continuous development (generally call CI/CD (continuous integration and deployment) will change the testing world as much as the agile revolution did. But will it? We have a tendency as technical experts to view Agile as an extensive way of talking about our daily standups or SCRUM. However, from the HBR’s point of view, it meant more than that. The claimers say that CI/CD, which they call “continuous development,” will have a great bang and effect, even, and has started in the “bowels of technology companies & startups.” They suggest that only 20% of IT teams are utilizing some form of what they call “continuous development.” Regardless, the also suggest managers to change their mindset and pay attention and find dramatic strategic benefits of successfully implementing Continuous Development: maximize engineering productivity, faster time to market, fix errors quicker and experiment more rapidly.

Maximize engineering productivity- High-quality engineers love continuous delivery environments as they can instantaneously see how their work adds value to the organization.

Faster time-to-market- Customers enjoy the additional advantages of new features sooner. Plus, the developers receive customer feedback on their creative features very rapidly, which leads to better feature that accurately meet client’s needs.

• Run more experiments rapidly- Frequent releases allow companies to constantly experiment with newly added features and test them on various audiences. In few cases, fresh features are deployed in the code and turned off or on for a specific customer segment by using an easy feature flag.

• Fix errors quicker- Because software code is released in small batches, it is simpler to identify the source of any troubles. Even it is also simpler to understand the consequences of an alteration if you’re making lots of simple steps.

So, Continuous Development is a growing buzz in the software industry. For good reason: it signifies the effective method for software development to attain both external and internal objectives. The insight here for business executives is that continuous delivery is more than merely an obscure software development. It represents the significant cultural weapon and competitive advantage in the battle for talent and customer loyalty.

6 Reasons Why Manual Testing Won’t Replace Automated Testing

There are so many discussions that automation testing is replacing manual testing. A lot of developers & testers in modern era want to look for the help of automation testing to make their lives simple. Test automation has received interest and much attention in recent times. But, the truth is that you can’t expect automation testing to execute all the work done by a software tester. A lot of developers and testers in the modern era prefer to seek the assistance of test automation to make their testing easy. However, test automation doesn’t have the capability to completely replace manual software testing. Therefore, we cannot expect that automation testing is stealing the job of software testers out there in the software testing world.

Reasons Why Test Automation will never replace Manual Testing:

  • It only tests what is predictable- Automated tests assure people that what we anticipate to happen does, in fact, turn out. We name this the “happy path”. Automation testing concentrates on functionality that already exists. It isn’t deep but its coverage is enormous. Test Automated is effective for regression tests, precisely when resources are restricted. But only doing test automation is sure to introduce some drawbacks and disappointment in your software testing process.
  • Automation is excessively expensive for small testing projects- Not just do you have automation testing software to pay for, but you also have high maintenance and management related costs, because of script writing & rewriting, including arrangement, set up and processing times. For big and long term projects, the higher expenses can be worth it. But for small and short projects it’s a massive waste of both money and time. When estimating the potential ROI for an automation purchase, you have to factor in additional man hours, too.
  • Automating usability tests is just impossible- Usability testing cannot be automated and it necessitates a human. You cannot train a system (laptop, computer, etc.) to spot “good” usability vs. “bad” usability. Perhaps you might think like, “Ok, we can easily skip usability testing”. Do not make such type of mistake. By skipping this type of testing, you are introducing an incredible amount of threat. This step in the Quality Assurance process is vital to ensure confidence in the product release. There is no means around involving manual testers in usability testing.
  • Automation Testing can contain faults/ bugs- Just like your app’s code can have bugs, automated tests can too. Automation tests can also catch Issues that are unaware of. If you write tests with bugs, you are literally going to have false positives, which can lead to several threats and problems for your clientele and your team. The human element of manual testing can spot these errors and ensure you are testing appropriately.
  • In agile, testing scripts have to be rewritten – Working with continuous feedback in agile environs means fluid changes to the flow of the product, the User Interface, or even attributes. And nearly every time, a modification entails a rewrite of the automated scripts for the subsequent sprint. Fresh new modifications also affect the testing scripts for regression tests, so even that classic automation example necessitates a lot of updates in agile.
  • Technical limits can come into play- The number of test scenarios is complex or downright impossible to automate. The universal argument is “automated testing is cheap”. But it’s not challenging to spend a ton of money and time on elaborate automation. For instance, testing a series of touch screen devices. How do you automate the understanding of a “swipe“and a “tap”. You cannot do that in a way that is equivalent to human being usage.

Final Verdict

The existence of both automated testing and manual testing forces us to think about our option of tools, their charge, and the rewards they will provide. There are a place and time for both testing techniques. Manual testing helps us understand the complete problem and explore other tests angles with flexibility. Test automation helps save time in the long run by achieving a large number of surface level tests in a limited time. It is up to you to decide where and when every single method of testing is used. Even though automation would not replace forms of manual testing, yet neither will manual testing remove automation. Once the distinction between them is understood, the in-depth dread of automation breaks down and a competent, gainful coordinated attempt rises.

We at ImpactQA provides both Quality Assurance manual testing as well as Automation using all the most recent automation testing and manual testing tools.