Software analysts bear the substantial task of discovering any flaws in software, be it related to its functioning or visual presentation. A bug can be flagged whenever a discrepancy is detected.
The purpose of this article is to explore the significance of both functional and visual flaws, and to present factors that should guide their prioritization. The text contains real-life instances for a deeper comprehension.
Recommended IPTV Service Providers
- IPTVGREAT – Rating 4.8/5 ( 600+ Reviews )
- IPTVRESALE – Rating 5/5 ( 200+ Reviews )
- IPTVGANG – Rating 4.7/5 ( 1200+ Reviews )
- IPTVUNLOCK – Rating 5/5 ( 65 Reviews )
- IPTVFOLLOW -Rating 5/5 ( 48 Reviews )
- IPTVTOPS – Rating 5/5 ( 43 Reviews )
Key Takeaways:
Relevance Of Functional And Cosmetic Bugs
During software development, encountering bugs is an inevitability, hence the necessity for meticulous testing. The purpose of testing is to find bugs that might have been overlooked by developers.
Undetected flaws could lead to costly consequences in a live environment. Therefore, comprehensive testing and planning tests are crucial factors in improving the quality of the software.
Fig 1:
As the visual representation above shows, the software was unable to display an image, a design flaw that could severely affect the business.
Significant Importance of Cosmetic Bugs
Cosmetic specifications pertain to the visual appeal or front-end design of the software, variants of which often occur between separate releases, particularly in projects that follow the agile methodology with sprint releases.
Clients frequently request alterations to the user interface to enhance its user-friendliness and streamline the software’s design for the purpose of the business.
Examples of cosmetic requirements:
- The font for menus should be Calibri.
- Textbox A should measure 1.2 inches.
- All reports should feature H1 size headers in ‘002522’ color.
These specifications strive to improve the usability and tailor the software to business needs.
Fig 2:
The illustration above represents both functional and cosmetic errors. The challenge of functional capacity is presented by the checkbox’s absence for “Use DeathByCaptcha.” In contrast, the cosmetic error is the inconsistency in the use of fonts.
Priority of Cosmetic Bugs Or Clients’ Needs
Clients often attribute greater significance to cosmetic needs as their focus lies in creating a software experience that is both seamless and efficient, thereby ensuring goal achievement. In case the user interface encounters issues, clients tend to raise low-priority bugs with vendors.
Developers lean towards prioritizing functional aspects over cosmetic ones as they typically exert a lower impact. Testers, however, aim to see all the client’s requirements realized in the software, and flag any non-alignment as a bug. Developers concentrate more on whether a bug could lead to functional breakdown.
These conversations among testers, developers, and clients culminate in recommendations from the testing team, which could be incorporated in forthcoming releases.
Practical Example #1)
When a client asked for the company logo to be displayed on the front page, positioned within the heading frame, with quick loading, the requirement was fulfilled by the vendor, but the logo took a while to load. To the client, this was perceived as a live issue, and it tarnished the vendor’s reputation. The underlying problem could have been the size of the image, the nature of the image, or other variables. Although it wasn’t a functional issue, it was treated like a severe live issue.
Functional bugs – Criticality and priority elements
Bugs are generally prioritized depending on the priority defined by the client and the potential impacts on business. Developers place high-importance bugs at the top of their list as these have a significant effect on their work. Clients prioritize both functional and cosmetic bugs in the same release, depending on their impact and priority. Functional bugs are treated as more critical, while the handling of cosmetic bugs is guided by the client’s decisions.
Fig 3:
The display above presents functional problems such as design and overlapping texts and cosmetic problems like issues with fonts.
Practical Example #2)
A vendor was meeting expectations after several successful releases for the same client. However, the client later noticed some functional and visual issues in certain business scenarios. They put the functional issues on urgent handling, while visual issues were split across multiple releases. The client was ready to launch the live version once some of the visual issues and most of the functional issues had been addressed, acknowledging the potential fallout.
Effects on Business
Functional bugs can gravely affect business because they result in noncompliance with client requirements. However serious though they may be, cosmetic bugs mainly affect usability and presentation and exert a lesser impact on business. Albeit not drastic, they could pose problems for users.
Practical Example #3)
A new version of a mobile software application was delivered by a vendor. The software required users to click on links a lot, creating usability challenges. The vendor had to re-evaluate the design and flow of the software. Once the modifications were applied, the number of software users increased. For such applications, usability markedly influential, even in the absence of functional modifications.
Comparison Between Cosmetic Bugs And Functional Bugs
Functional bugs differ from cosmetic bugs in several ways throughout the software testing life cycle. Here are some comparative points:
| Factors of Comparison | Functional Bugs | Cosmetic Bugs |
|---|---|---|
| Recreation Level | Recreating functional bugs demands considerable effort from testers or clients. | Recreating cosmetic bugs demands less effort since they are visible at the UI level. |
| Criticality | Functional bugs often have a high level of criticality and can drastically impact business. | Cosmetic bugs are seldom critical. |
| Priority | Clients establish the priority. | Clients establish the priority. |
| Potential Impact | Functional bugs have the potential to cause serious issues in a business. | Cosmetic bugs could potentially pose issues but are not as severe. |
| Consideration for Enhancements | Functional bugs are not considered for enhancements. | Cosmetic bugs can be deliberated for enhancements. |
| Costs If Left Unresolved | When detected in live software, functional bugs can incur high expenses. | Cosmetic bugs imply minimal costs. |
| Potential Origins | Functional bugs can have various sources, including coding issues, sync problems, and issues with dependent apps. | Cosmetic bugs can be due to design issues or incompatible files. |
Illustrations of cosmetic bugs
Cosmetic bugs can impinge on areas that display company logos or partner images and fail to load correctly. Despite being non-functional bugs, they can escalate in severity. The following depictions underline the importance of cosmetic bugs and their essential role.
Case Examination
Vendor B is engaged in the development of Software A that is delivered in monthly code drops following the release of a base version. Clients submit lists of issues, bugs and enhancements, each assigned specific priorities and levels of criticality. Clients expect Severe, Major and P1 bugs to be addressed by week 30, High and P2 bugs by week 35, Low and P3 bugs by week 40, and P4 bugs by week 40, allowing for a 3-day interval between releases.
Observations:
- Sequential releases necessitate strict adherence to schedules to prevent impact on successive plans.
- The timing of releases is determined by the client-assigned priorities.
- Delays in low-priority bugs can ratchet up their priority and significance.
- Minor delays can cause minor bugs to escalate into major issues.
Meeting Between Testers & Developers
Testers often feel that a developers’ job does not end upon the detection of numerous bugs. Following testing, developers frequently dismiss bugs flagged by testers as non-genuine issues. This usually results in disagreements between testers and developers, which can be resolved by a project manager to optimize deliverables and minimize defect leakage.
Conclusion
This article delineated the significance of cosmetic and functional bugs, and made comparisons between them regarding criticality, priority, and client suggestions. For a balanced software with bug resolutions, it is recommended that bugs be treated based on their criticality, priority, and client suggestions.
About the author: The writer of this article is Nagarajan, a testing lead with over 6 years of experience in various functional domains such as banking, airlines, and telecommunications, involving both manual and automation testing.
What’s your perspective on cosmetic and functional bugs? Share your views in the comment section below.