In software testing, a bug report is more than “something doesn’t work.” It’s the bridge between QA testers and developers. A clear, structured bug report saves hours of debugging, while a vague one leads to delays, confusion, and endless back-and-forth.

For QA professionals, writing effective bug reports is as important as running the tests, because it improves developer efficiency, speeds up fixes, and ensures high-quality product delivery.

Think of a bug report like detective work: your job is to describe the problem so clearly that developers can reproduce and fix it without extra meetings.

Why Clear and Effective Bug Reports Matters in QA Testing

A well-written bug report reduces friction and helps developers fix issues faster. It also ensures better collaboration between QA and development teams. Many organizations combine functional and automation testing services with structured bug reporting to streamline the QA lifecycle.

What Makes an Effective Bug Report in QA Testing?

In QA, an effective bug report isn’t about length it’s about clarity and usefulness, ensuring developers can reproduce and fix issues efficiently.

• Clear — Developers can instantly understand the problem.
• Reproducible — The issue can be repeated using the given steps.
• Relevant — Focused on the actual issue, not unrelated details.
• Concise — Short, but containing all necessary information.

From a developer’s perspective, good bug reports:

• Pinpoint exactly where and how the bug occurs
• Provide evidence to save guesswork
• Separate facts from assumptions 

From a QA perspective, effective bug reports:  

• Build trust with developers.  
• Lower the chances of “won’t fix” responses due to unclear details.

Demonstrate professionalism in testing.

Key Elements of an Effective Bug Report with Example

Clear and Descriptive Bug Report Title

The bug title is the first thing developers see in your tracker. It should summarize the issue in one line.

 Bad Example (common mistake):
“Return flight option missing from booking confirmation in round-trip booking flow.”

Good Example (Clear):
“Return flight option missing on Booking Confirmation page in Round Trip flow after selecting different airlines for onward and return legs.”

Steps to Reproduce

The steps to reproduce a bug are like a recipe: if followed exactly, a developer should see the same issue. However, many QA testers make mistakes by skipping important conditions or mixing different flows, which often confuses developers and slows down debugging.

  Bad Example (common mistake):

1. Open the flight website
2. Select round-trip
3. Enter dates and book

 Observed: Flight not working properly.

 Good Example (clear, structured):

1. Log in to the Flight Booking App with valid credentials
2. Select the Round Trip option
3. Choose Departure: Ahmedabad → Delhi (15 Sep 2025)
4. Choose Return: Delhi → Ahmedabad (20 Sep 2025)
5. Click Search Flights
6. Search and select valid flights for both legs
7. Proceed to booking confirmation

Observed: Booking confirmation page shows only the departure flight; the return flight is missing.

 Expected vs Actual Result

QA testers often make mistakes here by being too vague or over-explaining. Writing something like ‘It doesn’t work’ isn’t helpful. Instead, you should clearly separate what you expected to happen from what actually happened. Here’s a simple example of how to present expected and actual  results. 

 Bad Example (common mistake):

“After booking a round trip, the user sees only one flight. It needs fixing.”

 Good Example (clear, structured):
       Expected: Confirmation page should display both departure and return flights.
        Actual: Only departure flight is shown; return flight is missing.

Environment and Configuration

Bugs don’t always appear everywhere; they often depend on conditions like the browser, operating system, or device used. That’s why it’s essential to document the test environment clearly, so developers can reproduce the issue in the same setup.

 Bad Example (common mistake):

“Happens on chrome”

  Good Example (clear, structured):

• OS: Windows 11 Pro, Version 23H2 (64-bit)
• Browser: Chrome 117.0.5938.92 (also reproduced on Firefox 118.0)
• Device: Dell Inspiron 15 (i5, 8GB RAM)
• Environment: QA/Staging (qa.flight-app.com)
• Network: Wi-Fi, 100 Mbps stable connection

Attach Evidence

Even the most detailed bug report benefits from evidence. Too often, testers skip adding evidence, which slows developers and delays fixes. Simple attachments like screenshots, videos, or logs can make issues clear instantly and save everyone valuable time.

 Bad Example (common mistake):

No attachments provided.

 Good Example (clear, structured):

• Screenshot: round-trip-missing-return.png
• Video: round-trip-bug.mp4

Console Log: Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property ‘returnFlight’ of null

Severity and Priority

This severity and priority helps the dev team decide how soon to fix the bug. Not all bugs are equal. Some bugs crash the system, others just affect the look and feel. To help the development team decide what to fix first, QA testers suggest both severity and priority.

• Severity → How serious the bug is (functional/technical impact).
• Priority → How soon the bug should be fixed (business impact).

A bug can be:

• High Severity + High Priority
  
• High Severity + Low Priority
  
• Low Severity + High Priority
  
• Low Severity + Low Priority

Let’s break these down with good and bad examples.

High Severity + High Priority

Problem: The booking flow is broken, preventing users from completing a round-trip booking. This delays fixes and blocks customers.

Bad Example (Wrong Classification):

• Severity: Low
  
• Priority: P3
  
• Issue: Round-trip booking confirmation not showing return flight.

Good Example (Clear & Correct):

• Severity: High – Core booking flow is broken, return flight missing.
  
• Priority: P1 – Users cannot complete round-trip bookings; must be fixed before release.

Explanation: Both severity and priority are high because it affects all users and stops a critical business process.

High Severity + Low Priority

Problem: The app crashes in an old browser (IE9), but very few users still use it. Fixing it urgently is not necessary.

Bad Example (Wrong Classification):

• Severity: Critical
  
• Priority: P1
  
• Issue: Application crashes on Internet Explorer 9.

Good Example (Clear & Correct):

• Severity: High – App crashes when loading dashboard on IE9.
  
• Priority: Low – Browser is outdated; minimal business impact.

Explanation: Technically severe, but not urgent for the business because most users aren’t affected.

Low Severity + High Priority

Problem: A minor issue, like a misspelled airline name, could affect the company’s brand if not fixed before launch.

Bad Example (Wrong Classification):

• Severity: Critical
  
• Priority: P1
  
• Issue: Airline brand name misspelled on homepage (“IndiGo” → “IndiiGo”).

Good Example (Clear & Correct):

• Severity: Low – Cosmetic issue, no functional impact.
  
• Priority: High – Branding mistake on homepage; must fix before launch.

Explanation: The bug is minor in functionality but urgent to fix for business image.

Low Severity + Low Priority

Problem: Minor cosmetic issue that doesn’t affect users or core functionality. Can be fixed later.

Bad Example (Wrong Classification):

• Severity: High
  
• Priority: P1
  
• Issue: Placeholder text slightly misaligned in search box.

Good Example (Clear & Correct):

• Severity: Low – Cosmetic UI misalignment in search box.
  
• Priority: Low – Doesn’t block user flow; can be fixed in a future sprint.

Explanation: Small visual issue with low impact; safe to fix later.

With these four combinations explained, testers can assign severity and priority more accurately, reducing friction and helping developers focus on what truly matters.

Additional Notes for Bug reports

This section is optional but useful for documenting additional patterns, frequency, or related bug IDs.

• Frequency of occurrence.
• Patterns noticed.
• Related bug IDs like #5432.

Example:

Occurs consistently when selecting flights with mixed airlines; works fine when both legs are from the same airline.

Extra Bug Report Examples Across UI, API, and Mobile Testing

• UI Bug
  • Bad: Search button is not aligned properly.
  • Good: Search button misaligned on the flight search results page in Safari 16 (macOS Ventura), making it difficult to click.
    
• API Bug
  • Bad: Booking API not working sometimes
  • Good: POST /api/bookings returns 500 – internal server error when returnFlightId field is missing in round trip booking request
    
• Mobile App Bug
  • Bad: App crashes during flight booking
  • Good: App crashes after tapping ‘Confirm Booking’ on Round Trip flow in Android 13 (Pixel 6). Crash happens consistently after selecting two different airlines.

Writing Style Tips for Developer-Friendly Bug Reports

• Be objective – Avoid personal opinions or blame.
• Be structured – Use headings, bullets, and spacing.
• Be concise – Stick to the facts, no essays.
• One bug per ticket – If you find two issues, create two reports.

Common Bug Report Mistakes to Avoid

• Vague titles, like “Something’s wrong” or “Page broken”.  
• Missing steps to reproduce the issue.  
• No attachments or logs included.  
• Combining unrelated bugs in one ticket.  
• Guessing the root cause without evidence.
• Incorrect severity suggestions

Sample Bug Report Template

Title: Return flight missing from Round Trip booking confirmation

1. Environment

• OS: Windows 10 Pro (64-bit)
• Browser: Chrome 110.x (also reproduced on Edge 112.x)
• Device: Desktop (Dell OptiPlex, 8GB RAM)
• Test Environment: Staging (staging.flight-booking-app.com)

2. Steps to Reproduce

1. Launch the staging site: https://staging.flight-booking-app.com
2. Log in with a valid test user (e.g., qa.user1@test.com / Test@123)
3. On the home page, select the “Round Trip” option
4. Enter trip details:
   • From: Ahmedabad (AMD)
   • To: Delhi (DEL)
   • Departure Date: 15 Sep 2025
   • Return Date: 20 Sep 2025
5. Click “Search Flights”
6. From the search results:
   • Select a valid departure flight (Ahmedabad → Delhi)
   • Select a valid return flight (Delhi → Ahmedabad)
   • Note: Bug is more frequent when choosing different airlines for onward and return legs
7. Click “Continue” to proceed to the booking summary page
8. Enter mandatory passenger details (First Name, Last Name, Email)
9. Click “Confirm Booking”

3. Expected Result

• The booking confirmation page should display both departure and return flights under the itinerary.

4. Actual Result

• The confirmation page shows only the departure flight.
• Return flight is missing, leading to an incomplete booking.

5. Severity & Priority (Suggested)

• Severity: High → Core functionality broken (users cannot complete round-trip booking).
• Priority: P1 → Blocks end-users, must be fixed before release.

6. Attachments

• Screenshot: missing-return.png
• Video: round-trip-bug.mp4
• Logs: server.log excerpt (timestamp: 2025-09-08 14:35:02)

7. Additional Notes

• The issue occurs only when booking a round-trip with two different airlines.
• When both legs are on the same airline, booking confirmation works correctly.
• Bug not observed on one-way bookings.

Conclusion

A bug report is more than just a task; it’s a communication tool. When you create bug reports that are clear, organized, reproducible, and backed by evidence, you not only make developers’ jobs easier but also improve the product itself. 

If your team struggles with inconsistent or unclear reporting, our expert QA experts at JigNect can help implement bug reporting best practices as part of a complete QA strategy.

Remember, great bug reports don’t just fix issues; they build collaboration, trust and better products.

Witness how our meticulous approach and cutting-edge solutions elevated quality and performance to new heights. Begin your journey into the world of software testing excellence. To know more refer to Tools & Technologies & QA Services.

If you would like to learn more about the awesome services we provide,  be sure to reach out.

Happy Testing 🙂