Measuring How New Tools & Processes Affect Issues Making it to Production
Est Reading Time: 4 min
May 10, 2020
How many changes until an issue makes it through to production? It's going to happen no matter what your test coverage is or how many static checks and peer reviews you put the code through. Bugs happen to the best of us and help drive change within teams and organizations. They can highlight where we have vulnerabilities and help create ideas to improve our systems. Root causing them helps us to reduce the rate that they make it out into production, and new tools and processes evolve out of this cycle to solve new and complicated challenges we encounter. To figure out how these new tools or processes are impacting us, we need to track our change failure rate.
To determine your change failure rate, you'll need some approach to track how many of your changes result in patches or issues. You could use a ticket manager, but in my experience, unless you have a pretty sophisticated setup where you link commits and PRs to tickets, the tickets don't end up getting closed effectively. Also, tickets tend not to track the actual number of changes or the actual number of bug fixes deployed to production. I've found it's better to shift the labeling of changes and fixes further to the left, putting the responsibility on the people committing changes, when they are committing changes.
Most code collaboration platforms like GitHub have a labeling feature, where you can add labels to pull requests indicating what type of changes are being proposed. Using labels is the best way I've found to drive involvement from developers, limit overhead, and avoid human errors, which helps improve the accuracy of the measurements.
I've tried tracking commit message strings like "fix" and "patch", and this can work + has the added benefit of not relying on a version control systems (VCS) or one of their supporting platforms. However, it scales poorly without a lot of regex or AI, and getting everyone to use the same words and syntax is a headache. Secondly, a single commit is not always representative of a change that makes it to production. What's pushed out to production might be (and most likely will be) multiple commits.
Using pull request labeling, you'll want some distinction between a pull request that is a change request and one that captures multiple change requests into a release that merges into the production branch of the platform. That way, you can track what changes are going out to production rather than adding noise of commits or pull requests that fix things before they are actually deployed to production.
I'd suggest starting with at least 4 different labels:
|Breaking Change||A backward-incompatible change|
|Feature||New functionality that is backward compatible|
|Bug||Backwards compatible bug fixes|
|Release||A group of changes that will be merged into your production system|
You may want to add some more like "Enhancement" or "Infrastructure", but for initial training, I've found it easiest to break things into these categories and then work with developers to refine as your team needs, rather than over-optimizing at the outset.
Once you know what types of changes your team is making, and which ones are merging into production, you'll need the number of issues that occur during that release. You can get fancy and utilize your application performance monitoring (APM) tool to track issues identified or create releases in your project management tool and link bugs to it. In my experience, these approaches result in quite a bit of noise. You can reduce that noise with more advanced APM implementations or project management processes, but I suggest taking the same approach of labeling pull requests. Branch naming can be another okay solution, but again it has trouble scaling for similar reasons to tracking commit messages.
You can utilize the same "bug" label we discussed above, but that approach also has some limitations. For example, as we noted above, there are times when bug fixes are made before changes merge into production. If this occurs, the deployment system is working as intended, and that shouldn't go against our change failure rate. That's why you might want to add a "hotfix" label that team members add whenever they are working on a fix for a bug that made it into production.
Once you have the labels in place, and the team using them, doing the calculation becomes possible. To do the equation across the entire history of your project in Python, you'll do:
round((hotfixes / (breaking-changes + features)) * 100.0, 1)
Once you have this, you can then work your way towards tracking what your change failure rate is over time and how it changes from release to release. Doing so allows you to monitor how inserting a new tool or process into your team's development cycle is helping, hurting, or not making a difference in the rate of issues that are making it into production.
Knowing where others stand can help you understand where your team is at and where you might want to aim next. Google and the DevOps Research & Assessment organization put out a study each year based on data collected from thousands of professionals worldwide. In it teams fall into various tiers depending on their performance. Below is the breakdown for change failure rate.
|Tier||Change Failure Rate||% of Teams in Tier|
For the complete study and methods utilized check out Google's State of DevOps 2019. Also the percentages equal 99% due to rounding.
Understanding the change failure rate of your system helps you to optimize what happens pre-deployment, helping to eliminate mistakes and build more maintainable code. However, it does not help you measure how quickly you can identify a bug made it into production or how quickly you can resolve it once you identify it. To measure this, you'll want to calculate your mean time to recovery and duration to incident identification.
Sign up today with instant, no-hassle setup. No credit card required!Sign Up Now
© 2020 Next Release, LLC. All rights reserved. Made with ❤ in Michigan.