Project

General

Profile

Actions

action #177504

closed

Conduct lessons learned "Five Why" analysis for "Use needles from correct ref of NEEDLES_DIR" size:S

Added by livdywan about 2 months ago. Updated about 2 months ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
High
Assignee:
Category:
Feature requests
Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:

Description

Motivation

Let's discuss how #162035 turned into an L ticket.

Background

https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/5175 is a feature originally contributed by Scott Clarke from the community / Debian
We retroactively filed #162035 and only came up with ACs even later.

Questions

  1. Why couldn't we estimate the effort properly to understand that the effort would be much more than reasonable for a single ticket?
    • A1-1: Because we understood that only the open points from #162035#note-30 were necessary
    • => I1-1-1: Be more clear with what "expertise" is necessary for certain tasks (e.g. using beginner/expert tags on tickets, this ticket had no such tags)
    • => I1-1-2: Ask assignees and domain experts explicitly for agreement or disagreement
    • => I1-1-3: Avoiding having a mindset of trying to merge the code ASAP, which could lead to the wrong compromises. We didn't consider to re-estimate or split
    • => I1-1-4: Explicitly come up with a good subject when estimating a ticket
  2. Why weren't we able to finish the ticket by following the agreed open action points?
    • A2-1: We didn't look at the feature as something we would use in production which is why some tried to expand the scope of the work even though that was never properly written down in the ticket.
    • => I2-1-1: Please be open about change of plans or not yet understood parts in tickets
    • => I2-1-2: We can suggest to the PR author of https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/5175 that we would work on #157159 first and rebase afterwards but let's be fair and not just force changes
    • A2-2: We didn't consider that this could be tough for someone less experienced with our testing facilities.
    • A2-3: The vacation hand-over probably added to the time spent and confusion about how to continue.
  3. Why didn't ticket assignee and domain experts flag it in time that the due date is not realistic?
    • A3-1: We didn't think the ticket had priority in our own roadmap.
    • A3-2: Some of us thought that we already "gave up" on usual reasonable expectations and we were lost in "sunken cost fallacy"
    • => I3-2-1: Let's ensure everyone that we are a diligent team and stick to the plan or reconsider explicitly otherwise :) In dailies, unblock, coordination more diligently check the state of tickets with their due date, if effort estimation is still reasonable, etc.
    • A3-3: The due date was reset meanwhile for other reasons which would have hidden how much it was delayed in total.
    • A3-4: The ACs we came up with were not specific enough.
    • A3-6: The suggestion "Saying no to a feature is always an option too" was not considered.
  4. Why are we working on a feature we cannot enable in our instances (at least not in the proposed form)?
    • A4-1: Because we want to help others and not just work for our's sake
    • A4-2: Because we see the feature as reasonable use case and something we might want to do anyway in the future (with some changes on top)
    • A4-3: It was seen as a minimal effort supporting changes we may enable later.
    • => I4-1: If only specific domain experts can lead a ticket then they should do it
  5. Why did we not just do the missing "100% statement coverage" first? See #162035#note-34
    • A5-1: By not following on what we agreed upon and "question everything" without planning it in tickets
  6. What should we do for the future regarding "picking up open pull requests by others"

Acceptance criteria

  • AC1: A Five-Whys analysis has been conducted and results documented
  • AC2: Improvements are planned

Suggestions

  • Bring up in retro
  • Conduct "Five-Whys" analysis for the topic
  • Identify follow-up tasks in tickets
  • Organize a call to conduct the 5 whys

Related issues 2 (1 open1 closed)

Copied from openQA Project (public) - action #162035: Support development of "Use needles from correct ref of NEEDLES_DIR" https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/5175 size:MResolveddheidler2024-06-10

Actions
Copied to openQA Project (public) - action #177793: What should we do for the future regarding "picking up open pull requests by others"New

Actions
Actions #1

Updated by livdywan about 2 months ago

  • Copied from action #162035: Support development of "Use needles from correct ref of NEEDLES_DIR" https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/pull/5175 size:M added
Actions #2

Updated by livdywan about 2 months ago

  • Subject changed from 5 Whys on Support development of "Use needles from correct ref of NEEDLES_DIR" size:S to Conduct lessons learned "Five Why" analysis for "Use needles from correct ref of NEEDLES_DIR" size:S
  • Description updated (diff)
Actions #3

Updated by okurz about 2 months ago

  • Target version changed from Tools - Next to Ready
Actions #4

Updated by livdywan about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from New to In Progress
  • Assignee set to livdywan

Let's discuss it early next week. I'll draft some points that have been raised already. Maybe we'll even spot more open questions by not waiting for the original ticket to be resolved.

Actions #5

Updated by livdywan about 2 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)
Actions #6

Updated by openqa_review about 2 months ago

  • Due date set to 2025-03-08

Setting due date based on mean cycle time of SUSE QE Tools

Actions #7

Updated by livdywan about 2 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)
Actions #8

Updated by livdywan about 2 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)
Actions #9

Updated by livdywan about 2 months ago

  • Copied to action #177793: What should we do for the future regarding "picking up open pull requests by others" added
Actions #10

Updated by livdywan about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Feedback

I added ideas we came up with to our team wiki (diff), and filed #177793 as a follow-up ticket.

Actions #11

Updated by okurz about 2 months ago

  • Due date deleted (2025-03-08)

All your changes are good. So do you plan to more thoroughly follow those points in the next meetings and keep the ticket open until then or close right now?

Actions #12

Updated by livdywan about 2 months ago

  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved

okurz wrote in #note-11:

All your changes are good. So do you plan to more thoroughly follow those points in the next meetings and keep the ticket open until then or close right now?

Glad you like them. I plan to keep them in mind so we don't just write them to forget about them. Closing the ticket, though 🤞🏼

Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF