Skip to content

Issue Identification Workflow

Run the Issue Identification Workflow Fullscreen
Edit Issue Identification Workflow Using the p5.js Editor

About This MicroSim

This interactive decision tree provides a systematic approach to finding and categorizing issues in generated MicroSim code. Each checkpoint represents a distinct testing phase with specific actions, decision points, and severity classifications.

How to Use

  1. Click on checkpoint nodes to cycle through states: Pending > In Progress > Complete
  2. View checkpoint details by clicking on any node to see the action, decision, and checklist
  3. Track progress using the indicator showing completed and in-progress checkpoints
  4. Reset using the Reset All button to start a new issue identification session

Severity Color Coding

Color Severity Impact
Red Blocker Prevents any further testing; must fix immediately
Orange Critical Core functionality broken; high priority fix
Yellow Major Significant issues affecting user experience
Green Minor/Enhancement Polish items and suggested improvements

The Seven Checkpoints

Checkpoint 1: Syntax Check (Blocker)

Action: Open code in editor, check for red underlines

Decision: Are there syntax errors?

  • Yes: Log as Blocker, request fix immediately
  • No: Continue to next checkpoint

Checklist:

  • No red underlines in editor
  • No syntax highlighting errors
  • All brackets and braces matched

Checkpoint 2: Load Test (Blocker/Critical)

Action: Open in browser

Decision: Does it load without console errors?

  • No: Examine console, log as Blocker or Critical
  • Yes: Continue to visual inspection

Checklist:

  • Page loads without errors
  • No console errors
  • Canvas/visualization appears

Checkpoint 3: Visual Inspection (Major/Minor)

Action: Compare to specification mockup

Decision: Are there visual issues?

  • Yes: Log as Major or Minor depending on severity
  • Continue regardless

Checklist:

  • Layout matches specification
  • Colors are correct
  • All controls are present
  • Labels are readable

Checkpoint 4: Functional Testing (Critical/Major)

Action: Test each control and interaction

Decision: Are there functional issues?

  • Yes: Log issues as Critical or Major
  • No: Continue to edge case testing

Checklist:

  • Default values are correct
  • Range controls work properly
  • Changes update visualization
  • Edge cases are handled

Checkpoint 5: Edge Case Testing (Major)

Action: Try unusual inputs

Decision: Are there edge case issues?

  • Yes: Log issues found
  • No: Continue to specification review

Checklist:

  • Minimum values work
  • Maximum values work
  • Rapid changes handled gracefully
  • Browser resize works correctly

Checkpoint 6: Specification Review (Major/Minor)

Action: Compare to specification line by line

Decision: Are there specification deviations?

  • Yes: Log deviations with appropriate severity
  • No: Continue to quality review

Checklist:

  • All specified features are present
  • Behavior matches specification
  • Output format is correct
  • Performance is acceptable

Checkpoint 7: Quality Review (Minor/Enhancement)

Action: Perform code review

Decision: Are there quality issues?

  • Yes: Log as Minor or Enhancement
  • No: Complete workflow

Checklist:

  • Comments are present
  • Code is organized
  • Accessibility features included
  • Best practices followed

After Completion

Once all checkpoints are complete:

  1. Priority Sorting: Organize issues by severity (Blocker > Critical > Major > Minor > Enhancement)
  2. Refinement Prompt: Generate a detailed prompt listing all issues for the AI to address
  3. Iteration: Submit the refinement prompt and repeat the workflow on the updated code

Embedding This MicroSim

1
<iframe src="https://dmccreary.github.io/automating-instructional-design/sims/issue-identification-workflow/main.html" height="752px" width="100%" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Lesson Plan

Learning Objectives

By the end of this activity, students will be able to:

  1. Apply a systematic approach to code testing and issue identification
  2. Classify issues by severity level using standard categories
  3. Document issues clearly for AI refinement prompts
  4. Prioritize fixes based on impact and severity

Suggested Activities

  1. Guided Walkthrough (15 min): Use this workflow to identify issues in a sample MicroSim with intentional bugs
  2. Issue Classification (10 min): Given a list of issues, practice assigning appropriate severity levels
  3. Refinement Prompt Writing (15 min): Write a clear refinement prompt based on identified issues
  4. Peer Review (20 min): Exchange generated MicroSims and conduct independent issue identification

Assessment

  • Evaluate completeness of issue identification
  • Check accuracy of severity classifications
  • Review quality of refinement prompts generated
  • Track improvement in generated code quality over iterations

References

  • ISO/IEC 25010:2011 - Systems and software quality requirements and evaluation
  • ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus
  • Software Testing Fundamentals - Myers, G.J., Sandler, C., & Badgett, T.