88""Yb 888888 db 8888b. Yb dP 888888 dP"Yb 888888 888888 .dP"Y8 888888
88__dP 88__ dPYb 8I Yb YbdP 88 dP Yb 88 88__ `Ybo." 88
88"Yb 88"" dP__Yb 8I dY 8P 88 Yb dP 88 88"" o.`Y8b 88
88 Yb 888888 dP""""Yb 8888Y" dP 88 YbodP 88 888888 8bodP' 88
Software QA and Support ★ Automation ★ Manual Testing
Current Date & Time (Pacific) ★
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement Gap Example
philosophy.htm ⮐
⚠️ Fictional Scenario: E-commerce site / Shipping options
What's Built
A checkout page where users can select their shipping method:
Standard, Express, or Overnight Air.
What Was Missing
The requirement never mentioned that certain items like batteries
or hazardous goods cannot legally be shipped via Overnight due to
safety regulations.
What Happens
A user adds a lithium battery to their cart, goes to checkout, and
selects Overnight shipping and the system allows it, because the devs
didn't know there should be a restriction.
Bug Outcome
The order gets flagged manually by the warehouse team. Delay in
shipping. Confused customer wondering why they paid for overnight
but didn't get it.
Why It's a Bug
A key rule was missing that some products aren't supposed
to allow overnight shipping. Users can do something they shouldn't.
That's a bug from a missing requirement.
How It Could've Been Prevented
If QA had been involved during the spec review, they might've asked
"Any shipping limits based on item type?" and this question could've
exposed the gap early.
Yes, QA can catch it later in testing, but that means devs have to
context switch from some other feature they've moved on to, go back,
rework things(which isn't always straightforward), and then it needs
to be retested... when it could've just been built right the first time.
It's kind of like the saying, "measure twice, cut once."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top ⇧