It depends on the scheduling of your QA - can you let them continue testing while developers are working on the next iteration already or not?
If yes, I'd let them finish testing.
Just continue on with the next iteration with the data that you have already. You really don't want to hold back a number of people because of one bottleneck. You could add a little extra slack on the next iteration to fix bugs that haven't been reported yet, by assigning slightly less work than a full iteration's worth for every developer.
If no, just plan the next iteration as any normal iteration and test at the end of the iteration as before.
If you cannot test the iteration output in the agreeed manner, we normally take zero points for the sprint (or whatever points can be tested). It feels tough right there & then but it has turned out to be a sensible thing to do.
(The last sprint of a project is obviously differemt)
By having an single handoff between your development and QA you've created a single point of failure in your iteration. You already let this iteration slip a day by not delivering to QA in time. Making up time by rushing QA isn't the answer.
You could improve this situation by delivering to QA more often, ideally you'd do this every time a feature is done. If the last build fails QA can just test the previous build and you'll have to move the feature that was implemented since then to the next iteration.
Agile canon is that you only count those stories/backlog items as done which are DONE - and typically your definition of DONE should include "being tested". So, you simply don't get credit for the stories that aren't tested yet. After all, a similar problem might arise next iteration, too.
It's not totally clear from you question on how QA is integrated in your process. In general, you should make sure that bugs can't escape a sprint, because otherwise your velocity becomes very unreliable.
发布评论
评论（4）
这取决于您的 QA 的安排 - 当开发人员已经开始进行下一个迭代时，您是否可以让他们继续测试？
如果是的话，我会让他们完成测试。
只需使用已有的数据继续进行下一次迭代即可。 你真的不想因为一个瓶颈而阻碍很多人。 您可以在下一次迭代中添加一些额外的时间来修复尚未报告的错误，方法是为每个开发人员分配比完整迭代的工作量略少的工作量。
如果不是，只需像任何正常迭代一样计划下一次迭代，并像以前一样在迭代结束时进行测试。
It depends on the scheduling of your QA - can you let them continue testing while developers are working on the next iteration already or not?
If yes, I'd let them finish testing.
Just continue on with the next iteration with the data that you have already. You really don't want to hold back a number of people because of one bottleneck. You could add a little extra slack on the next iteration to fix bugs that haven't been reported yet, by assigning slightly less work than a full iteration's worth for every developer.
If no, just plan the next iteration as any normal iteration and test at the end of the iteration as before.
如果您无法以商定的方式测试迭代输出，我们通常在冲刺中取零分（或任何可以测试的点）。 那里感觉很艰难& 但事实证明这是明智之举。
（项目的最后一个冲刺明显不同）
If you cannot test the iteration output in the agreeed manner, we normally take zero points for the sprint (or whatever points can be tested). It feels tough right there & then but it has turned out to be a sensible thing to do.
(The last sprint of a project is obviously differemt)
通过在开发和 QA 之间进行单次交接，您在迭代中造成了单点故障。 由于没有及时交付给 QA，您已经让这次迭代拖延了一天。 通过匆忙进行质量检查来弥补时间并不是答案。
您可以通过更频繁地交付给 QA 来改善这种情况，理想情况下您每次完成功能时都应该这样做。 如果最后一个构建失败，QA 只能测试之前的构建，并且您必须将自那时以来实现的功能移至下一个迭代。
By having an single handoff between your development and QA you've created a single point of failure in your iteration. You already let this iteration slip a day by not delivering to QA in time. Making up time by rushing QA isn't the answer.
You could improve this situation by delivering to QA more often, ideally you'd do this every time a feature is done. If the last build fails QA can just test the previous build and you'll have to move the feature that was implemented since then to the next iteration.
敏捷准则是，您只计算那些已完成的故事/积压项目 - 通常，您对完成的定义应包括“正在测试”。 因此，您根本不会因为尚未经过测试的故事而获得荣誉。 毕竟，下一次迭代也可能会出现类似的问题。
从您的问题来看，关于质量检查如何集成到您的流程中的问题并不完全清楚。 一般来说，您应该确保错误无法逃脱冲刺，因为否则您的速度会变得非常不可靠。
Agile canon is that you only count those stories/backlog items as done which are DONE - and typically your definition of DONE should include "being tested". So, you simply don't get credit for the stories that aren't tested yet. After all, a similar problem might arise next iteration, too.
It's not totally clear from you question on how QA is integrated in your process. In general, you should make sure that bugs can't escape a sprint, because otherwise your velocity becomes very unreliable.