Improving Defect Tracking Using Shared Context

  • Hassane TahirEmail author
  • Patrick Brézillon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10257)


Test engineers log bugs in a defect tracking system to different actors. For instance, in the case of database defects, after the first cycle of bug tracking is completed, the system will notify the Database Administrator (DBA). The DBA can log in to the system and get the bug list with priority. He can then solve the bug and change its status in the system. There are many ways of applying defect tracking by different actors because they do not have the same viewpoints about the contexts related to the management of the defects. Actors need to devote their efforts to develop new practices and use past expert experience in order to create an effective strategy to maintain applications. The paper presents how to contextualize defect tracking based on different expert viewpoints. We show how making shared context explicit can help to improve resolving defects and avoid conflicts between experts having distinct viewpoints.


Contextual Element Defect Management Recombination Node Agile Development Agile Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Abhiraja, S., et al.: Defect prevention technique in test case of software process for quality improvement. Int. J. Comput. Technol. Appl. 3(1), 56–61 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ansar, K.: Establishing a defect management process model for software quality improvement. Int. J. Future Comput. Commun. 2(6) (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brézillon, P.: Task-realization models in contextual graphs. In: Dey, A., Kokinov, B., Leake, D., Turner, R. (eds.) CONTEXT 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3554, pp. 55–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11508373_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brézillon, P., Pomerol, J.-C.: Contextual knowledge and proceduralized context. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 1999 Workshop on Modeling Context in AI Applications, Orlando, Florida, USA. AAAI Technical report, July 1999Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carneiro, A., Passos, R., Belian, R., Costa, T., Tedesco, P., Salgado, A.C.: DBSitter: an intelligent tool for database administration. In: Galindo, F., Takizawa, M., Traunmüller, R. (eds.) DEXA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3180, pp. 171–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30075-5_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Don, O.: Defect management in an agile development environment. J. Def. Softw. Eng. (2003). Elissa, K.: Title of paper if known (unpublished)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elfayoumy, S., Patel, J.: Database performance monitoring and tuning using intelligent agent assistants. In: Arabnia, H.R., Deligiannidis, L., Hashemi, R.R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Information & Knowledge Engineering, IKE 2012, WORLDCOMP 2012, Las Vegas Nevada, USA, 16–19 July, CSREA Press (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gopalakrishnanm, N.: Effective defect prevention approach in software process for achieving better quality levels. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 42 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    JÖRG, R.: Handling of software quality defects in agile software development. In: Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering (IESE) (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Macros, K., Guilherme, T.: Towards a defect prevention based process improvement approach. In: 34th Euromicro Conference Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. IEEE (2008). doi: 10.1109/SEAA.2008.47
  11. 11.
    Pomerol, J.-C., Brézillon, P.: Context proceduralization in decision making. In: Blackburn, P., Ghidini, C., Turner, R.M., Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) CONTEXT 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2680, pp. 491–498. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). doi: 10.1007/3-540-44958-2_42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rajni, et al.: Defect analysis and prevention techniques for improving software quality. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. Softw. Eng. (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sowa, J.F.: Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suma, V.: Defect management strategies in software development. Wseas Trans. Comput. (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sydney, et al.: Agile-Why the fear. Planit Software Testing (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tahir, H., Brézillon, P.: Contextual graphs platform as a basis for designing a context-based intelligent assistant system. In: Brézillon, P., Blackburn, P., Dapoigny, R. (eds.) CONTEXT 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8175, pp. 259–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40972-1_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tahir, H., Brézillon, P.: Individual decision making based on a shared context. In: International Conference on Decision Support Systems: Fusing DSS into the Fabric of the Context, Anávissos, Greece. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, June 2012. doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-073-4-63
  18. 18.
    Tomaszewski, P., et al.: Statistical models vs. expert estimation for fault prediction in modified code - an industrial case study. J. Syst. Softw. 80, 1227–1238 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zheng, J., et al.: On the value of static analysis for fault detection in software. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 32(4), 240–253 (2006). doi: 10.1109/TSE.2006.38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIP6, University Pierre and Marie Curie (UPMC)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations