How often do you actually receive quality bug reports at work? My experience is that external or internal users almost never provide sufficient information and you as a coder are always expected to drill down on what they reported with a barrage of questions.
ie. if you are not doing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_whys then you might be doing it wrong and wasting time because of it.
I'm referring to this:
> Some developers would have immediately gone back to the person reporting the problem and required more information before investigating. I try and do as much as I can with the information provided.
Which seems like being stubborn and making a mistake because of it.
Couple other parts also seem a bit overdoing it:
> Because I investigated if there were other ways of getting to the same problem, not just the reported reproduction steps. > Because I took the time to verify if there were other parts of the code that might be affected in similar ways.
These seem like taking a gamble. Maybe something comes up, but is it more probable that this work should be minimised until there is more proof of "other ways of getting to the same problem"? Developer time is expensive, is this really the best way of using it? Would it make sense to just fix the issue at hand and only put in more time if more bug reports come in after the fix or if there is some other indication that this part of the code might be more broken?