However, a bug tracking system is not an ongoing payment. The assigned values are correct or not; There is no (or should not) grey area. If codes, locations and degrees of gravity are defined effectively, there is only one attribute for each of these categories for a particular error. Unlike a continuous measurement value, which cannot be accurate (on average), any lack of precision in an attribute measurement system inevitably leads to accuracy problems. If the error coder is not clear or undecided on how to encode a defect, different codes are assigned to several defects of the same type, making the database imprecise. In fact, the vagueness of an attribute measurement system is an important factor in inaccuracies. Second, the evaluation of the attribute agreement should be applied and the detailed results of the audit should provide a number of information that will help to understand how evaluation can be the best way to be organized. As performing an attribute analysis can be tedious, costly and generally uncomfortable for all stakeholders (the analysis is simple versus execution), it is best to take a moment to really understand what should be done and why. Once it is established that the bug tracking system is a system for measuring attributes, the next step is to examine the concepts of accuracy and accuracy that relate to the situation. First, it helps to understand that accuracy and precision are terms borrowed from the world of continuous (or variable) gags.
For example, it is desirable that the speedometer in a car can carefully read the right speed over a range of speeds (z.B. 25 mph, 40 mph, 55 mph and 70 mph), regardless of the drive. The absence of distortion over a range of values over time can generally be described as accuracy (Bias can be considered wrong on average). The ability of different people to interpret and reconcile the same value of salary multiple times is called accuracy (and accuracy problems may be due to a payment problem, not necessarily to the people who use it). Often, what you are trying to evaluate is too complex to rely on the effectiveness of one person. For example, contracts, design drawings with specifications and parts lists, as well as software codes. One solution is to use a team-based approach or an inspection/verification meeting where identifying errors is at the heart of the discussion. Often, several people can get a common individual assessment that is better than what each of them could have produced on their own. It is a way to mitigate the most difficult sources of repeatability and reproducibility to control. First, the analyst should determine that there is indeed attribute data.
One can assume that the assignment of a code – that is, the division of a code into a category – is a decision that characterizes the error with an attribute. Either a category is correctly assigned to an error, or it is not. Similarly, the appropriate source location is either attributed to the defect or not. These are “yes” or “no” and “correct allocation” or “wrong allocation” answers. This part is pretty simple. The accuracy of a measurement system is analyzed by segmenting into two main elements: repeatability (the ability of a particular evaluator to assign the same value or attribute several times under the same conditions) and reproducibility (the ability of several assessors to agree on a set of circumstances).