A bug life cycle is the step-by-step process a software bug goes through from the moment it's found to the moment it's fixed. This process helps teams keep track of bugs and fix them in an organized way.
Finding bugs early is important because it gives developers a chance to fix them right away, before they become bigger problems or harder to remove from the code.
The bug life cycle takes time and involves testers, developers, and project managers. In big projects, QA teams often use tools to help manage bugs. Even though it takes effort, this process helps both development and testing teams by:
Giving structure to how bugs are handled
Making sure critical issues aren’t missed
Improving communication between team members and stakeholders
Keeping track of software quality over time
Creating a clear, repeatable way to manage bugs
đź“š Read More: What is Test Case Management? A Complete Guide
Bugs and defects are often used interchangeably since they all refer to problems in software. However, there are several slight nuances that distinguish them:
|
Bug |
Defect |
|
|
Definition |
Flaw or error in software that causes it to deviate from expected functionality |
Any non-conformance or imperfection in the software, including functionality, usability, performance, or documentation |
|
Scope |
Specific coding or implementation error |
Broader term encompassing various quality issues beyond coding errors |
|
Nature |
Code-related issue |
Quality-related issue |
|
Cause |
Coding errors, design flaws, configuration issues, compatibility problems |
Deviation from requirements, specifications, or user expectations |
|
Examples |
System crash, incorrect output, security vulnerability |
Usability problem, performance bottleneck, design inconsistency |
đź“š Read More: How To Find Bugs on Websites
There are two ways to describe the defect life cycle:
The flow chart below gives you some idea of the process that unfolds when a bug is identified. It is based on personal experience with various testing teams, so it’s not representative of every bug process, but it is still a typical cycle for a bug in software testing.
The table below provides a more detailed breakdown of the activities at each stage and the staff members who are likely to be involved. There are three distinct groups: testers, developers, and project managers or leads.
|
Bug Life Cycle Activities |
People Involved |
|
1. Execute tests. |
Tester |
|
2. Report and submit the newly found bug to a bug management system. Set bug status to new. |
Tester |
|
3. Review and decide whether to fix the bug. Assign developers if necessary. Set bug status to in progress, under investigation, or similar. |
Project lead, project manager, tester |
|
4. Investigate and reproduce the bug. |
Developer |
|
5. If the bug can be successfully reproduced, fix it. Otherwise, request more information from the tester. Update bug status accordingly. |
Developer, tester |
|
6. Provide further description or use bug-reporting tools to elaborate the bug. |
Tester |
|
7. Verify the fix by executing steps described in the bug report. |
Tester |
|
8. Close the bug if the fix is verified. Otherwise, update bug status and provide further explanation. |
Tester |
We can also look at the bug life cycle from the status of bugs. Each bug status corresponds to a specific activity in the bug life cycle:
|
Bug Status |
Description |
|
New/Open |
The bug has been reported or identified and is awaiting review. It is typically assigned a unique identifier and entered into the bug tracking system. |
|
Deferred/Postponed |
There are two scenarios here:
It will be marked as "Deferred" or "Postponed" to be addressed in a future release or development cycle. |
|
Assigned |
The bug has been reviewed and assigned to a specific developer or team responsible for fixing it. This stage involves triaging the bug, prioritizing it, and allocating resources for resolution. |
|
In Progress |
The assigned developer has started working on fixing the bug. They are analyzing the bug's root cause and implementing necessary code changes or fixes. |
|
Fixed |
The developer has made the required code changes to address the bug. |
|
Pending Retest |
After the bug fix, the bug is marked as "Pending Retest." The QA team will make final verification if the bug has truly been fixed. |
|
Verified/Closed |
The bug has been re-tested by the QA team and confirmed to have been resolved completely.
|
|
Reopened |
If the bug is found to be unresolved or if new issues arise after verification, it is reopened. The development process continues from the "In Progress" stage to address the remaining issues. |
A bug status shows where a bug is in its journey from the moment it's found to when it’s fixed and closed. It helps the team track progress and know who’s responsible for what. Common statuses include:
New: The bug was just reported. No one has looked at it yet.
Assigned: Someone (usually a developer) is now working on it.
In Progress: The fix is being made.
Fixed: The bug is resolved, but not verified yet.
In Testing: QA is checking to make sure the fix actually works.
Closed: QA confirmed the bug is fixed. It’s done.
Reopened: The bug came back or wasn’t fully fixed.
Bug status essentially "tell the story" of the entire bug life cycle.
Not every bug is critical. But when one is, you need to act fast. A critical bug usually meets one or more of these conditions:
Breaks a core feature: Something essential like login or payment stops working.
Blocks testing or release: Testers can’t continue or a release is halted.
Causes data loss or corruption: User or system data is at risk.
Affects a large number of users: Widespread impact = high priority.
Security risk: Sensitive data can be exposed or hacked.
If a bug hits one of these, it needs immediate attention.
Common challenges in the bug life cycle include:
Too many bugs, not enough time: Teams can get overwhelmed, especially during crunch time.
Poor prioritization: Not all bugs are equal. Without a clear system, teams might waste time on low-impact issues.
Miscommunication: Developers, testers, and PMs aren’t always aligned on the status, impact, or next steps.
Lack of tools or process: Without a structured workflow or tracking tool, bugs fall through the cracks.
Duplicate or unclear reports: Vague or repetitive bug reports slow everyone down.
The more bugs you have, the more important it is to focus on the ones that matter most—and keep the process clean.
Raising a bug with someone is a skill.
There should be subtlety and thoughtfulness in how you do it. As Ministry of Testing puts it, it's both an Art and a Battle.
Here are some steps you should do:
Use a bug reporting format the whole team agrees on. Consistency avoids confusion and sets the right expectations. If you don’t have a shared template, propose one.
A good bug report should answer these questions:
What did you expect to happen?
What actually happened?
How can someone reproduce it, step by step?
Where did it happen? (Device, browser, version, environment)
What proof can you share? (Screenshots, logs, error messages)
The goal is to save the next person time and guesswork.
đź“š Read More: How to make a good test report?
Not everything is a full-blown bug. If something just feels off, report it as an Observation. This keeps the team informed without triggering unnecessary drama. It’s a softer signal, which is really useful for edge cases, suspicious behavior, or UX oddities.
Some developers get defensive when bugs pop up unexpectedly. Approach it like this:
Compare expected vs observed behavior instead of saying something is simply “wrong”.
Acknowledge your own uncertainty when needed (“I may have misunderstood the requirement”).
Offer to raise the bug after a quick chat. Aim to collaborate, don’t just throw it over the wall.
Separate large bug clusters into smaller, individual tickets for clarity.
Be mindful of volume. Too many tickets at once can overwhelm the team.
Frame bugs as information sources, not as blame. Each bug brings visibility to what might have been missed.
Start with a clearly defined bug life cycle that’s agreed upon by everyone: QA, devs, PMs. Define each status explicitly using the list of bug status we introduced above. However, make sure that you also introduce a soft category like Observation for suspicious behavior that doesn’t clearly qualify as a bug. It keeps the signal without triggering unnecessary alarms.
Each defect should be clean, reproducible, and concise so that the devs can have an easier time localizing the root cause of the bug. That means you should specify in your bug report:
What was your expectation?
What actually happened (describe the bug)?
Steps to reproduce (minimal and clear)
Environment details (browser, OS, device, version)
Evidence (screenshots, logs, console errors)
Attempting to fix every reported defect within a sprint is neither scalable nor efficient. Instead, apply risk-based prioritization to streamline triage decisions. You can categorize bugs as:
High Risk: Business-critical flows, payments, authentication
Medium Risk: User-facing but recoverable issues
Low Risk: Cosmetic, internal, or edge cases
Document triage criteria as part of your QA governance model and ensure it’s consistently applied during backlog grooming and sprint planning sessions.
Embedding QA only at the tail-end of development leaves no time for the dev team to troubleshoot. To ensure comprehensive test coverage and early defect detection, embed QA from the outset of the software development life cycle (SDLC).
In other words, QA teams should:
đź“š Read More: How to implement shift-left testing?
As the product matures, the regression surface inevitably grows. Without a strategy, this leads to bottlenecks and test fatigue. To mitigate that:
Prioritize regression suites based on risk and recent code changes
Automate stable, repetitive checks across critical paths
Continuously refactor and deprecate obsolete test cases
Maintain a hybrid model, with manual exploratory testing for new risk areas and automation for mature functionality
Regression testing should be reliable, efficient, and provide fast feedback. If it’s slowing down delivery, it needs architectural review.
đź“š Read More: How to do regression testing in Agile?
Every QA professional will, at some point, miss bugs that make it to production. It doesn’t mean you’re careless, or incompetent. Software is complex, and it's important that you know how to respond to the situation:
You’re not the first QA to miss bugs that end up in production, and you won’t be the last. Seniority doesn’t grant superpowers. Deadlines, assumptions, and lack of time all contribute to missed coverage. You tested what you could with what you had.
You should treat the bug as a learning artifact. Deep-dive into the issue and ask:
Why were these bugs missed?
Were test cases unclear, missing, or incomplete?
Did you misunderstand a requirement or make incorrect assumptions?
Was regression coverage too shallow?
Here are some action items:
Update your test suite with the missed cases
Propose a cross-check process (e.g., test plan peer reviews)
Use “observations” or exploratory notes to document odd behavior before it’s a bug
Start keeping an audit trail of what was tested and why
This shows you're solution-oriented and turning failure into value.
Managing the bug life cycle enables your team to achieve faster feedback loops. Bug life cycle management becomes more and more critical as your product scales (which means more features to test). Without the right tools, regression testing and debugging quickly become bottlenecks.
That’s where Katalon steps in.
Katalon is designed to support testers, developers, and QA managers throughout the entire bug life cycle from detection to resolution: