iSQI CTFL_Syll2018 Dumps

 These are some of the factors that should be considered to determine whether enough testing has been performed. The exit criteria define the specific goals and requirements for testing completion. The budget limits the resources and time available for testing. The product’s risk profile indicates the areas of highest priority and impact for testing. Sufficient details of the system status allow decisions on whether further testing is needed or not. The other options are not relevant factors for determining enough testing.

•  According to the IEEE 829 Standard for Software Test Documentation, an incident report should contain the following information:

Therefore, among the options given in this question, only (i), (iii), and (iv) are part of an incident report based on IEEE 829.

This is the definition of a data driven approach to test automation design, which allows for reusability and maintainability of test scripts. Option A describes a keyword driven approach, which uses action words to describe the test steps and data. Option B is not related to test automation design, but rather to performance testing. Option C is also not related to test automation design, but rather to a testing technique.

Use-case testing is a technique that uses use-cases as a test basis to derive test cases2. A use-case is a description of interactions between actors and a system to achieve a goal2. An actor represents a type of user or anything that interacts with the system2. Use-cases are not the most common test basis for unit testing, as they are more suitable for higher levels of testing such as system or acceptance testing3. An actor is not always a human user, as it can also be another system or device2. Test cases can be based on use-case scenarios, which are sequences of actions and events that occur during a use-case execution2. Use-case testing will often identify gaps not found by testing individual components, as it can reveal missing or incorrect requirements, integration issues, and usability problems.

Testing can demonstrate that there are defects in the software, by finding and reporting them. Testing cannot demonstrate that there are no defects, because it is impossible to test all possible scenarios and inputs. Testing cannot demonstrate that the software is correct, because correctness is a subjective and relative concept that depends on the expectations and requirements of the stakeholders. Testing cannot demonstrate that there are no hidden defects in the software, because hidden defects are those that are not detected by testing or other quality assurance activities.

The process that ensures that all items of testware are identified, version controlled, tracked for changes, so that traceability can be maintained throughout the test process is D. Configuration management process. Configuration management is a process that establishes and maintains the integrity and consistency of all items of testware throughout the test process. Configuration management involves identifying, storing, controlling, tracking, and auditing all items of testware (such as test plans, test cases, test scripts, test data, test results, etc.) and their versions and changes. Configuration management helps to ensure that only authorized and approved items of testware are used for testing and that traceability can be maintained between them. A detailed explanation of configuration management can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 101-1021.

Coverage of code, schedule, estimates of defect density. Exit criteria are the conditions that must be met before testing can be completed and the system can be released. Exit criteria can be based on factors such as coverage of code or requirements, schedule or budget constraints, estimates of defect density or severity, etc. Exit criteria help to determine when to stop testing and evaluate the quality of the system. A detailed explanation of exit criteria can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 15-161.

The choice of software development model depends on product and project characteristics1. A software development model is a framework that defines the activities, tasks, roles, and deliverables of a software project1. There are various software development models, such as waterfall, V-model, iterative, incremental, agile, etc1. The choice of software development model depends on product and project characteristics, such as size, complexity, scope, requirements, quality attributes, risks, resources, schedule, budget, etc1. Different software development models have different advantages and disadvantages for different types of products and projects1. Therefore, the choice of software development model depends on product and project characteristics.

The minimum number of test cases required to guarantee both 100% statement coverage and 100% decision coverage is 2. Statement coverage means that every statement in the code is executed at least once by the test cases. Decision coverage means that every possible outcome of each decision (such as if-else statements) is executed at least once by the test cases. To achieve both statement and decision coverage, we need to test two scenarios: one where X > Y and one where X <= Y. This will ensure that all statements and decisions are covered by the test cases. A detailed explanation of statement and decision coverage can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 61-671.

These are examples of exit criteria, which are the conditions that must be met before testing can be completed. Exit criteria may also include test coverage measures, residual risk assessment, or stakeholder approval. The other options are not exit criteria, but rather test planning activities.

 A role of a formal review is B. Moderator. A formal review is a type of static technique that involves a structured process of examining code or other software artifacts by a team of reviewers who follow predefined roles and rules. A formal review has four main phases: planning, preparation, meeting, and follow-up. A formal review has five main roles: author (the person who created the code or other software artifact under review), moderator (the person who leads and facilitates the review process), reviewer (the person who examines the code or other software artifact under review and provides feedback), scribe (the person who records the issues and outcomes of the review meeting), and manager (the person who monitors and controls the review process). A moderator is a key role in a formal review because he or she is responsible for planning, organizing, conducting, and reporting the review activities and ensuring that the review objectives are met. A detailed explanation of formal reviews can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 35-37.

To apply to the RAD development model. Metrics are quantitative measures that can be used to monitor, control, and improve the test process and the quality of the system. Metrics can be used for various purposes, such as to identify the percentage of work done in test environment preparation or test case preparation, to measure whether dates of test milestones were met, to compare actual results with expected results, to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of testing, etc. However, metrics are not specific to any development model, such as RAD (Rapid Application Development), and can be applied to any type of software development project. A detailed explanation of metrics can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 103-105.

Statement coverage and decision coverage are both less than 100%. Statement coverage is a criterion that requires every executable statement in the source code to be executed at least once by a test suite1. Decision coverage is a criterion that requires every decision (or branch) in the source code to take both true and false outcomes at least once by a test suite1. The flow graph below shows the logic of a program for which 100% statement coverage and 100% decision coverage is required on exit from component testing. The flow graph has 9 nodes (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I) and 10 edges (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). The edges represent executable statements and the nodes represent decisions or branches.

!flow graph

The following test cases have been run:

• Test Case 1 covering path A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I
• Test Case 2 covering path A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H
• Test Case 3 covering path A-B-C-D-E-F
• Test case 4 covering path A-B-C-D-E

To calculate the statement coverage and decision coverage achieved by these test cases, we can use the following formulas:

• Statement coverage = (Number of statements executed / Total number of statements) x 100%
• Decision coverage = (Number of decisions exercised / Total number of decisions) x 100%

In this case, the number of statements executed by the test cases is 8 (edges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9). The total number of statements in the flow graph is 10 (edges 1 to 10). Therefore, the statement coverage achieved by the test cases is:

• Statement coverage = (8 / 10) x 100% = 80%

The number of decisions exercised by the test cases is also 8 (nodes A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H). The total number of decisions in the flow graph is also 10 (nodes A to J). Therefore, the decision coverage achieved by the test cases is:

• Decision coverage = (8 / 10) x 100% = 80%

Therefore, statement coverage and decision coverage are both less than 100%. To achieve 100% statement coverage and decision coverage, two more test cases are needed to cover edges 8 and 10 and nodes I and J.

Static analysis is a technique to find defects in software source code and software models, performed without executing code. Static analysis can be done manually or automatically using tools that examine the code or design of a software system without running it. Static analysis can help identify and prevent defects, measure complexity, check compliance, or improve quality.

The other statements are not correct definitions of static analysis because they describe different concepts related to testing. For example:

• A. The decision between using white or black box test techniques: This statement describes a test strategy, which is an approach or method for designing and executing test cases based on various factors, such as scope, objectives, risks, resources, etc.
• B. Executing software to validate the most common path through the code: This statement describes dynamic testing, which is a technique to find defects in software by executing it under various conditions and inputs and comparing the actual results with the expected results.
• D. It is a testing technique used during system testing: This statement describes a test level, which is a group of test activities that are organized and managed together based on some criteria, such as objectives, scope, target audience, etc.

You can find more information about static analysis in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 6, Section 6.3.

A potential infinite loop is a type of defect that can be typically identified using static analysis by tools1. Static analysis is a technique that examines the source code or other software artifacts without executing them, and can detect defects, vulnerabilities, code smells, and deviations from standards early in the development process1. Static analysis tools are software tools that automate the static analysis technique and provide various features and functionalities to support it1. Static analysis tools can identify a potential infinite loop by analyzing the control flow and data flow of the source code and checking for conditions or statements that may cause an endless repetition or iteration1. A potential infinite loop can cause serious problems in software performance, functionality, reliability, and security1. Therefore, a potential infinite loop is a type of defect that can be typically identified using static analysis by tools.

Testing support tools are software tools that assist testers in performing testing activities, such as test management, test design, test execution, test evaluation, and defect management1. According to the ISTQB syllabus, some typical targets of testing support tools are to automate activities that require significant resources when done manually, automate activities that cannot be executed manually, and automate repetitive tasks1. Automating repetitive inspections is not a typical target of testing support tools, as inspections are static testing techniques that involve human review and analysis of software artifacts1.

 Test objectives are specific goals or targets that define what testing activities should achieve or accomplish1. Test objectives for systems testing of a safety critical system include completion of all outstanding defect correction. Regression testing is required following defect correction at all test levels. Therefore, to determine whether this test objective has been met, two metrics that would be most suitable are:

• Regression tests run and passed in systems testing: This metric measures how many regression tests have been executed and passed in systems testing1. Regression testing is a type of testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after changes or defect corrections1. This metric can indicate whether all outstanding defect corrections have been completed and verified in systems testing.
• Incidents raised and closed at all levels of testing: This metric measures how many incidents have been reported and resolved at all levels of testing1. An incident is any event occurring during testing that requires investigation1. This metric can indicate whether all defects have been identified and corrected at all levels of testing.

The statement that BEST describes when test planning should be performed is D. Test planning is performed continuously in all life cycle processes and activities. Test planning is the process of defining the objectives, scope, approach, resources, schedule, risks, and deliverables for testing activities. Test planning is not a one-time activity that is done only at the beginning of the life cycle or at each test level. Test planning is a continuous activity that is done throughout the life cycle in all processes and activities that involve testing. Test planning should be aligned with the development process and should be updated regularly to reflect any changes or feedback from previous testing activities. Test planning should also consider different levels of testing (such as unit testing, integration testing, system testing, acceptance testing, etc.) and different types of testing (such as functional testing, non-functional testing, regression testing, etc.). A detailed explanation of test planning can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 13-15.

Decision coverage is a structure-based test technique that involves testing every decision point in the code by testing all possible outcomes or branches of each decision point. Decision coverage requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the software system; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does.

The pseudo code given in the question has one decision point at line 4, where the value of Gender is compared to ‘female’. This decision point has two possible outcomes or branches:

• True branch: If Gender = ‘female’, then print “Ms” at line 5.
• False branch: If Gender != ‘female’, then print “Mr” at line 7.

To achieve 100 per cent decision coverage, we need to test both outcomes or branches of the decision point at least once. Therefore, we need two test cases that cover both scenarios:

• TC1: Gender = ‘female’ -> Print “Dear Ms”
• TC2: Gender = ‘male’ -> Print “Dear Mr”

The other options are not correct because they do not provide enough or too many test cases to achieve 100 per cent decision coverage. For example:

• A. 1: This option is not enough because it only provides one test case that covers one outcome or branch of the decision point, but not the other.
• C. 3: This option is too many because it provides three test cases that cover both outcomes or branches of the decision point, but one of them is redundant or unnecessary.
• D. 4: This option is too many because it provides four test cases that cover both outcomes or branches of the decision point, but two of them are redundant or unnecessary.

You can find more information about decision coverage and structure-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

Functional and structural tests are alternative test types that may be used separately or together at B. All test levels. Functional testing is a type of testing that verifies the functionality of the system or component under test against its requirements or specifications. Functional testing focuses on what the system or component does, not how it does it. Structural testing is a type of testing that verifies the structure or code of the system or component under test. Structural testing focuses on how the system or component does it, not what it does. Functional and structural testing can be used separately or together at any test level, such as unit testing, integration testing, system testing, acceptance testing, etc. Functional and structural testing can complement each other by providing different perspectives and coverage of the system or component under test. A detailed explanation of functional and structural testing can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 25-26.

•  The test objectives for user acceptance testing of the first release of a new software product aimed at a general market and built using Agile methods are D. c and d. User acceptance testing is a level of testing that involves users or customers validating that the software product meets their needs and expectations before accepting it for use or deployment. User acceptance testing can have different objectives depending on the context and purpose of the software product. For a new software product aimed at a general market and built using Agile methods, some possible objectives are:

A detailed explanation of user acceptance testing can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 79-80.

A circumstance where maintenance testing is required is A. Migration of software onto a new platform. Migration of software onto a new platform is a type of change that affects the delivered software product and requires maintenance testing to ensure that the software product still works correctly and consistently on the new platform. A new platform can be a different hardware, operating system, network, database, browser, etc., that supports or interacts with the software product. Migration of software onto a new platform can introduce compatibility issues, performance issues, security issues, etc., that need to be detected and resolved by maintenance testing. A detailed explanation of migration testing can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], page 82.

Software testing contributes to the quality of delivered software by identifying root causes of defects from past projects and using the lessons learned to improve processes and thus help to reduce the defect count. Software testing is a process of verifying and validating that a software product meets the specified requirements and expectations of the stakeholders1. Software testing can detect defects in the software product and provide information about its quality1. Software testing can also identify root causes of defects from past projects and use the lessons learned to improve processes and thus help to reduce the defect count1. This can be done by using techniques such as root cause analysis, defect prevention, causal analysis, process improvement, etc1. These techniques can help to identify and eliminate the sources of defects in the software development lifecycle and prevent them from recurring in future projects1. Therefore, software testing contributes to the quality of delivered software by identifying root causes of defects from past projects and using the lessons learned to improve processes and thus help to reduce the defect count.

Static code analysis is a technique that examines the source code or other software artifacts without executing them, and can detect defects, vulnerabilities, code smells, and deviations from standards early in the development process1. According to the ISTQB syllabus, one of the benefits of static testing is early defect detection2, which can reduce the cost and effort of fixing them later.

 Equivalence partitioning is a technique that divides the input domain of a system into partitions or classes that are expected to behave similarly or produce similar outputs2. A test case can cover one value from each partition, as it is assumed that all values in the same partition are equivalent for testing purposes2. In this question, the groups of numbers fall into different equivalence classes based on the amount of customs duty to be paid, as shown below:

Group

Equivalence Classes

$20,000 $20,001 $30,001

No duty (up to $2,000), 10% duty ($2,001-$10,000), 12% duty ($10,001-$30,000), 17% duty (above $30,000)

$2,000 $2,001 $10,000

No duty (up to $2,000), 10% duty ($2,001-$10,000), 12% duty ($10,001-$30,000)

$2,000 $8,000 $20,000

No duty (up to $2,000), 10% duty ($2,001-$10,000), 12% duty ($10,001-$30,000)

$1,500 $2,000 $10,000

No duty (up to $2,000), 10% duty ($2,001-$10,000)

These are the four test levels defined for a common V-model testing approach, according to the ISTQB Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus. Unit testing is another term for component testing, and maintenance testing is not a test level, but a type of testing that can be performed at any level.

Testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification as soon as the UAT specification has been drafted1. UAT stands for user acceptance testing, which is a type of testing that verifies that the software product meets the acceptance criteria and expectations of the end users or customers1. A UAT specification is a document that defines the scope, objectives, approach, and criteria for UAT1. Testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification as soon as the UAT specification has been drafted, as this can help to ensure that the UAT specification is clear, complete, consistent, testable, and aligned with the user requirements1. Testers can also provide feedback and suggestions to improve the UAT specification and avoid potential issues or conflicts during UAT execution1. Therefore, testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification as soon as the UAT specification has been drafted.

Equivalence partitioning is best defined as an analysis technique that divides inputs into groups that are expected to exhibit similar behaviors. The idea is to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each group or partition. Equivalence partitioning does not apply to time-related data classes only, but to any type of input data that can be divided into partitions. Equivalence partitioning is not a form of white-box testing, but a black-box testing technique. Equivalence partitioning is not a method to reduce test coverage, but a method to achieve test coverage more efficiently.

Planning and control, analysis, design, implementation, execution, evaluation of exit criteria and reporting, test closure. The fundamental test process is a generic model that describes the main activities and tasks involved in testing. The fundamental test process consists of five phases: planning and control, analysis and design, implementation and execution, evaluation of exit criteria and reporting, and test closure activities. Each phase has specific objectives, inputs, outputs, and deliverables. A detailed explanation of the fundamental test process can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 13-241.

A consideration when deploying test execution tools is B. Recorded manual tests may become unstable in use. Test execution tools can record manual tests performed by a tester and replay them automatically on demand. However, recorded manual tests may become unstable or unreliable in use, due to various factors, such as changes in the system under test, changes in the test environment, changes in the user interface, timing issues, synchronization issues, etc. Therefore, recorded manual tests may require frequent maintenance or modification to keep them up to date and consistent with the system under test. A detailed explanation of recorded manual tests can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 112-113

The test organization that has the highest level of independence is C. Independent test specialists for specific test types, such as usability, performance or certification test specialists. Test independence refers to the degree of separation between the tester and the developer or user of the system or component under test. Test independence can help to reduce bias and increase objectivity in testing. Independent test specialists are testers who have specialized skills and knowledge in specific test types or domains and who are not involved in the development or use of the system or component under test. Independent test specialists can provide more reliable and accurate results than testers who are part of the development team or user community. A detailed explanation of test independence can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 9-10.

A limitation in the use of static analysis tools is C. Static analysis tools always generate large numbers of warning messages when applied to new code, even if the code meets coding standards. Static analysis tools are tools that analyze the code or other software artifacts without executing them, and report any defects, errors, vulnerabilities, or violations of coding standards or conventions. Static analysis tools can help to improve the quality and maintainability of the code or other software artifacts. However, static analysis tools also have some limitations, such as generating large numbers of warning messages when applied to new code, even if the code meets coding standards or conventions. This can make it difficult for developers or testers to identify and prioritize the most important or critical issues to fix or address. A detailed explanation of static analysis tools can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 109-1101.

The application failed because of a defect in the purchase identification module caused by a programmer mistake or an error in the specification. A defect is a flaw or imperfection in a software product that causes it to fail to meet its requirements or expectations. A failure is an event or behavior of a software product that deviates from its requirements or expectations. An error is a human action or decision that produces a defect. A mistake is an incorrect action or decision that leads to an error. In this case, the application failed because it incorrectly counted purchase attempts, which was a defect in the purchase identification module. The defect was caused by either a programmer mistake (such as writing wrong code) or an error in the specification (such as defining wrong requirements). A detailed explanation of defects, failures, errors, and mistakes can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 5-6.

Screen-dialog flows are sequences of screens and dialogs that represent the user interface and interaction of a system. Use case testing is a technique that uses use cases as a test basis to derive test cases1. A use case is a description of interactions between actors and a system to achieve a goal1. Use case testing is the most effective technique in testing screen-dialog flows, as it can capture the user requirements, scenarios, and expected outcomes of the system. Boundary value testing is a technique that uses boundary values as a test basis to derive test cases1. A boundary value is an input value or output value on the edge of an equivalence partition or at the smallest or largest value of a range1. Boundary value testing is not the most effective technique in testing screen-dialog flows, as it is more suitable for testing numerical inputs and outputs. Statement testing and coverage is a technique that uses statements in the source code as a test basis to measure the coverage achieved by a test suite1. A statement is a minimal executable unit of source code1. Statement testing and coverage is not the most effective technique in testing screen-dialog flows, as it is more suitable for testing the internal logic and structure of the code. State transition testing is a technique that uses state transition diagrams as a test basis to derive test cases1. A state transition diagram shows the states of a system and the transitions between them triggered by events or conditions1. State transition testing is not the most effective technique in testing screen-dialog flows, as it is more suitable for testing systems that have complex or dynamic behavior based on different states.

 The other details that should be included in the incident report when it is first submitted are B. Status of the incident, degree of impact, Test Case Number. These details are important to provide information about the current state of the incident, the severity of its effect on the system or user, and the test case that detected the incident. Other details, such as suggested solution, priority, history, related defects, expected fix time, line of code, etc., can be added later during the incident management process. A detailed explanation of incident report can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 99-1001.

The most important report improvement is A. Add an impact analysis. An impact analysis is an assessment of how the defect affects the functionality, usability, performance, reliability, security, or other aspects of the system under test. An impact analysis can help prioritize and classify the defect based on its severity and urgency. An impact analysis can also help determine the root cause and possible solutions for the defect. An impact analysis is an essential part of a defect report because it provides useful information for decision-making and improvement processes.

The other report improvements are not as important as adding an impact analysis because they do not provide as much information or value for decision-making and improvement processes. For example:

• B. Add information about which developer should fix the bug: This report improvement is not necessary because it is not part of the information that is required to describe, reproduce, and prioritize the defect. The assignment of developers to fix bugs is part of the defect management process, which involves assigning, tracking, resolving, and verifying defects.
• C. Add the time stamp when the incident happened: This report improvement is not very useful because it does not provide much information about the cause or effect of the defect. The time stamp when the incident happened is only relevant if it is related to some external factors or events that could influence the behavior or performance of the system under test.
• D. Add information about which web browser was used: This report improvement is not very relevant because it does not affect the functionality or usability of the system under test. The web browser used is only relevant if it is related to some compatibility or interoperability issues that could cause defects or failures in the system under test.

You can find more information about defect reports and impact analysis in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 5.

Memory leaks are errors that occur when a program does not release memory that it has allocated, causing the system to run out of memory and slow down or crash. Memory leaks cannot be detected by structure-based testing techniques, which are based on the code structure and logic. Structure-based testing techniques can only find errors that are related to the control flow, data flow, or logic of the program. For example, they can find errors such as features that are only partially implemented, data structures that are used before initialization, or division by zero. To detect memory leaks, you need dynamic analysis tools that monitor the memory usage of the program during execution. You can find more information about structure-based testing techniques and dynamic analysis tools in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Sections 4.2 and 4.31.

The term ‘Pesticide paradox’ refers to the phenomenon where the effectiveness of test cases that are repeated and focused on the same scenarios decreases over time because they tend to find the same defects or no defects at all. This is because the system under test becomes more resistant or immune to the existing test cases, just like pests become more resistant or immune to pesticides over time. To overcome the pesticide paradox, test cases should be regularly reviewed and updated to cover new or changed requirements, scenarios, risks, or defects. Test cases should also be designed to cover different aspects and perspectives of the system under test, such as functionality, usability, performance, security, etc. You can find more information about the pesticide paradox in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.11.

Use case testing is a specification-based test technique that is based on the use cases or scenarios that describe how users interact with the system under test. Use case testing aims to find defects in the process flow or functionality of the system under test by verifying that it behaves as expected according to the use cases or scenarios. Use case testing does not require any knowledge of the data flow or structure of the system under test; it only focuses on what the system does rather than how it does it. Use case testing can be done by professional testers or real users, depending on the level and purpose of testing. Use case testing can also be designed by customers or end users, developers, testers, analysts, or anyone who has access to the use case specifications or user requirements. You can find more information about use case testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

A use case is a description of how a user interacts with a system to achieve a goal or perform a task. A use case typically consists of a sequence of steps or actions that the user and the system perform to complete the goal or task. A use case can be used as a basis for designing test cases that verify the functionality and usability of the system under test. A test sequence that represents a possible use case should follow the logical order and flow of the user-system interaction and cover the main scenario and possible variations or exceptions. For example, based on the test cases given for a Library Management System, we can identify the following use cases:

• UC1: Add a new borrower to the system
• UC2: Update a borrower’s data
• UC3: Remove a borrower from the system
• UC4: Loan a book to a borrower
• UC5: Return a book from a borrower
• UC6: Reserve a book for a borrower
• UC7: Send “reservation ready” message to a borrower

The test sequence that represents a possible use case is D. 1-2-6-7-4-5-3. This test sequence follows the logical order and flow of the user-system interaction and covers the main scenario and possible variations or exceptions. For example:

• TC1: Add a new borrower to the system -> This is the first step of the use case, where the user registers as a new borrower in the system.
• TC2: Update a borrower’s data -> This is a possible variation of the use case, where the user updates their personal or contact information in the system.
• TC6: Reserve a book for a borrower -> This is the second step of the use case, where the user reserves a book that they want to borrow from the library.
• TC7: Send “reservation ready” message to a borrower -> This is the third step of the use case, where the system sends a message to the user informing them that their reserved book is ready for pickup.
• TC4: Loan a book to a borrower -> This is the fourth step of the use case, where the user picks up their reserved book from the library and loans it from the system.
• TC5: Return a book from a borrower -> This is the fifth step of the use case, where the user returns their borrowed book to the library and returns it to the system.
• TC3: Remove a borrower from the system -> This is a possible exception of the use case, where

the user decides to cancel their membership and remove their account from the system.

The other test sequences do not represent possible use cases because they do not follow the logical order and flow of the user-system interaction or they do not cover the main scenario and possible variations or exceptions. For example:

• A. 1-4-2-7-5-6-3 -> This test sequence does not follow the logical order and flow of the user-system interaction because it performs some steps before or after they are supposed to happen. For example, it performs TC4 (Loan a book to a borrower) before TC6 (Reserve a book for a borrower), which does not make sense because the user cannot loan a book that they have not reserved yet.
• B. 1-6-2-5-7-4-3 -> This test sequence does not follow the logical order and flow of the user-system interaction because it performs some steps before or after they are supposed to happen. For example, it performs TC5 (Return a book from a borrower) before TC4 (Loan a book to a borrower), which does not make sense because the user cannot return a book that they have not loaned yet.
• C. 1-6-4-7-5-3-2 -> This test sequence does not cover the main scenario and possible variations or exceptions because it omits some steps that are essential for completing or terminating the use case. For example, it omits TC2 (Update a borrower’s data), which is a possible variation of the use case that allows the user to change their personal or contact information in the system.

You can find more information about use cases and test sequences in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

 System integration testing and acceptance testing are two different levels of testing that have different objectives and stakeholders. System integration testing is the process of testing the interactions and interfaces between different components or systems that form a larger system. System integration testing verifies that the system meets its functional and non-functional requirements and works as expected in its intended environment. System integration testing is usually done by testers or developers who have access to the system architecture and design specifications. Acceptance testing is the process of testing the system by the end users or customers to determine if it satisfies their needs and expectations and is ready for deployment or delivery. Acceptance testing verifies that the system complies with the user requirements and business processes and provides value to the stakeholders. Acceptance testing is usually done by users or customers who have access to the user requirements and business scenarios. You can find more information about system integration testing and acceptance testing in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 2, Sections 2.2 and 2.31.

Component testing is a part of the V-Model, which is a development life cycle model that shows the relationship between each phase of development and its corresponding phase of testing. In this model, each level of testing (unit testing, integration testing, system testing, acceptance testing) has a corresponding level of development (component design, component integration, system design, requirements analysis). Component testing is the process of testing individual components or units of software in isolation from other components or systems. Component testing verifies that the components meet their functional and non-functional requirements and work as expected in their intended environment. Component testing is usually done by developers who have access to the component design and code specifications. You can find more information about component testing and the V-Model in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 22.

Multiple condition coverage is a structure-based test technique that aims to achieve a high level of coverage by testing all possible combinations of conditions and outcomes in each decision point of the code or design of the system under test. Multiple condition coverage verifies that each condition in a decision point has an effect on the outcome and that there are no hidden defects or logical errors in the code or design. Multiple condition coverage requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system under test; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does. Multiple condition coverage is one of the most rigorous and complex structure-based test techniques because it can generate a large number of test cases for each decision point, especially if there are many conditions involved. You can find more information about multiple condition coverage in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

The fundamental test process activity where the sufficiency of testing and resulting information are assessed is Evaluating exit criteria and reporting. This activity involves checking whether the test objectives have been met and whether there are any unresolved issues or risks that could affect the release or deployment decision. This activity also involves preparing and communicating a test summary report that summarizes the test activities and results and provides recommendations and feedback for improvement. You can find more information about Evaluating exit criteria and reporting in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 3, Section 3.5.

A tool type is a category of tools that have similar features and functions and can be used for similar purposes. A test manager is a person who is responsible for planning, monitoring, controlling, and reporting the test activities and results. A test manager needs to use tools that can help them with these tasks and provide them with useful information and insights. Some examples of tool types that are useful for a test manager are:

• Defect tracking tool: This tool type allows the test manager to record, track, manage, and report the defects found during testing. It also helps the test manager to communicate with developers, testers, and other stakeholders about the defect status and resolution.
• Test management tool: This tool type allows the test manager to organize, manage, and control the test process and its outcomes. It also helps the test manager to define the test strategy, plan the test activities, allocate the test resources, schedule the test execution, monitor the test progress, and evaluate the test results.
• Requirements management tool: This tool type allows the test manager to manage and trace the requirements of the system under test. It also helps the test manager to ensure that the test objectives are aligned with the user needs and expectations and that the test coverage is adequate and complete.

The other tool types mentioned in the question are not as useful for a test manager as they are for other roles or purposes. For example:

• Modeling tool: This tool type allows the user to create graphical or textual representations of software systems or processes. It can be used for design, analysis, simulation, or documentation purposes.
• Static analysis tool: This tool type allows the user to examine the code or design of a software system without executing it. It can be used for finding defects, measuring complexity, checking compliance, or improving quality.
• Coverage measurement tool: This tool type allows the user to measure how much of the code or design of a software system has been exercised by a set of test cases. It can be used for evaluating the effectiveness or completeness of testing.

You can find more information about tool types in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 61.

Statement testing is part of structure-based testing, which is a type of testing that verifies the internal structure or implementation of a software system, such as code, architecture, design, etc. Statement testing is a structure-based test technique that involves testing every statement in the code at least once to ensure that there are no syntax errors, logical errors, or hidden defects in the code. Statement testing requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the software system; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does.

The other types of testing mentioned in the question are not related to statement testing because they do not verify the internal structure or implementation of a software system. For example:

• A. Experience-based testing: This type of testing relies on the skills, knowledge, intuition, and creativity of testers to design and execute test cases based on their experience with similar systems or situations.
• B. Decision testing: This type of testing verifies every decision point in the code by testing all possible outcomes or branches of each decision point to ensure that there are no logical errors or hidden defects in the code.
• C. Specification-based testing: This type of testing verifies the external behavior or functionality of a software system based on its requirements, specifications, design documents, or other sources of information.

You can find more information about statement testing and structure-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

The ‘Standard for Software Test Documentation’ specification (IEEE 829) is a standard that defines a set of documents that can be used to document the test process and its outcomes. The standard provides an outline for each document, specifying its purpose, content, and format. However, the standard does not prescribe how to apply it in different contexts or projects. It is up to each organization or project to decide how to adapt the standard to their specific needs and situation. Therefore, the standard is not a rigid or mandatory requirement that must be followed strictly by all testers. Rather, it is a flexible and adaptable guideline that can be used as a reference or a starting point for creating test documentation regimes. You can find more information about IEEE 829 and test documentation in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 51.

Test metrics are quantitative measures that are used to monitor, control, and improve the test process and its outcomes. Test metrics can be collected at different levels of testing (test case, test suite, test project, etc.) and can be used for different purposes (planning, estimation, execution, evaluation, etc.). Some examples of common test metrics are:

• Percentage of work done in test environment creation: This metric indicates how much effort has been spent on setting up and maintaining the test environment, which includes hardware, software, network, data, tools, etc., that are required for conducting the test activities.
• Number of test cases run: This metric indicates how many test cases have been executed during a given period or phase of testing.
• Deviation from test milestone dates: This metric indicates how much delay or ahead of schedule the test activities are compared to the planned dates.
• Defect density: This metric indicates how many defects have been found per unit of size or functionality of the system under test.

Average number of expected defects per requirement is not a common test metric because it is not easy to estimate or measure how many defects are likely to be found for each requirement. Moreover, this metric does not provide useful information for improving the test process or evaluating the test results. You can find more information about test metrics in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 5, Section 5.41.

The requirement given in the image specifies an additional fee of $3 that is charged during the weekend, with some exceptions and discounts based on the age of the visitors. To test this requirement, we can use boundary value analysis, which is a specification-based test technique that involves testing the values at or near the boundaries of an equivalence partition. An equivalence partition is a set of values that are expected to be treated in the same way by the system under test. For example, based on the requirement, we can identify the following equivalence partitions for the input age:

• EP1: Age < 0 (invalid)
• EP2: Age = 0 (valid, no charge)
• EP3: 0 < Age < 7 (valid, no charge)
• EP4: Age = 7 (valid, 20% discount)
• EP5: 7 < Age < 13 (valid, 20% discount)
• EP6: Age = 13 (valid, 20% discount)
• EP7: 13 < Age < 65 (valid, full charge)
• EP8: Age = 65 (valid, 50% discount)
• EP9: Age > 65 (valid, 50% discount)

The boundary values for each equivalence partition are the values at or near the edges of the partition. For example, the boundary values for EP3 are 1 and 6. The boundary values for EP4 are 6 and 7. The boundary values for EP5 are 7 and 12. And so on.

To test this requirement using boundary value analysis, we need to select one value from each boundary and test it with different combinations of weekend and weekday. For example, we can select the following values:

• BV1: Age = -1 (from EP1)
• BV2: Age = 0 (from EP2 and EP3)
• BV3: Age = 6 (from EP3 and EP4)
• BV4: Age = 7 (from EP4 and EP5)
• BV5: Age = 12 (from EP5 and EP6)
• BV6: Age = 13 (from EP6 and EP7)
• BV7: Age = 64 (from EP7 and EP8)
• BV8: Age = 65 (from EP8 and EP9)
• BV9: Age = 66 (from EP9)

We can then create test cases using these values and different combinations of weekend and weekday. For example:

• TC1: Age = -1, Weekend = Yes -> Invalid input
• TC2: Age = -1, Weekend = No -> Invalid input
• TC3: Age = 0, Weekend = Yes -> No charge
• TC4: Age = 0, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC5: Age = 6, Weekend = Yes -> No charge
• TC6: Age = 6, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC7: Age = 7, Weekend = Yes -> $2.40 ($3 - 20% discount)
• TC8: Age = 7, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC9: Age = 12, Weekend = Yes -> $2.40 ($3 - 20% discount)
• TC10: Age = 12, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC11: Age = 13, Weekend = Yes -> $2.40 ($3 - 20% discount)
• TC12: Age = 13, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC13: Age = 64, Weekend = Yes -> $3
• TC14: Age = 64, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC15: Age = 65, Weekend = Yes -> $1.50 ($3 - 50% discount)
• TC16: Age = 65, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC17: Age = 66, Weekend = Yes -> $1.50 ($3 - 50% discount)
• TC18: Age =

66, Weekend = No -> No charge

Therefore, we need a minimum of 18 valid test cases to achieve 100% boundary value coverage based on input age.

$3.01 is not a valid output boundary value because it is not a possible output value based on the requirement. The output values can only be $0, $1.50, $2.40, or $3 depending on the input age and weekend status.

You can find more information about boundary value analysis in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

A decision table is a specification-based test technique that involves creating a table that shows the combinations of inputs and outputs for a system under test based on certain conditions and rules. A decision table can be used to design test cases that cover all possible scenarios and outcomes for a system under test. Some statements about decision tables are:

• I. Generally, decision tables are generated for low risk test items: This statement is false because decision tables can be generated for any level of risk test items depending on the complexity and variability of the system under test. Decision tables are especially useful for testing systems that have many inputs, outputs, conditions, and rules that affect their behavior or performance.
• II. Test cases derived from decision tables can be used for component tests: This statement is true because decision tables can be used to design test cases for any level or type of testing, including component tests. Component tests are tests that verify individual components or units of software in isolation from other components or systems.
• III. Several test cases can be selected for each column of the decision table: This statement is true because each column of the decision table represents a unique combination of inputs and outputs for the system under test based on certain conditions and rules. Therefore, each column can be used as a basis for selecting one or more test cases that cover that combination.
• IV. The conditions in the decision table represent negative tests generally: This statement is false because the conditions in the decision table can represent both positive and negative tests depending on the requirements and expectations of the system under test. Positive tests are tests that verify that the system under test behaves as expected under valid or normal inputs or conditions. Negative tests are tests that verify that the system under test handles errors or exceptions gracefully under invalid or abnormal inputs or conditions.

You can find more information about decision tables in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

Testing tools can be used by both developers and testers for different purposes and at different stages of the software development life cycle. For example, developers can use tools such as unit testing frameworks, code coverage tools, debugging tools, static analysis tools, etc., to improve the quality of their code and find defects early. Testers can use tools such as test management tools, test design tools, test execution tools, test data preparation tools, performance testing tools, etc., to support their testing activities and increase their efficiency and effectiveness. The use of testing tools does not necessarily imply test automation, which is the use of software to perform or support test activities that would otherwise require manual intervention. Test automation is a complex and costly process that requires careful planning, design, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation. The use of testing tools also does not change the role of the test team, which is still responsible for defining the test strategy, designing the test cases, analyzing the test results, reporting the defects, etc. You can find more information about testing tools and test automation in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 61.

A configuration management tool is a tool that allows users to manage and control the versions and changes of software artifacts, such as code, documents, test cases, etc. A configuration management tool can help prevent the loss of Sam’s updates by:

• Providing a centralized repository where Sam can store and retrieve his test cases and other artifacts
• Keeping track of the history and status of each artifact and allowing Sam to compare and revert to previous versions if needed
• Supporting collaboration and communication among team members by allowing them to share and access the latest versions of the artifacts

The other tools mentioned in the question are not relevant for this scenario because they do not provide the same functionality or benefits as a configuration management tool. For example:

• A. Incident management tool: This tool type allows users to record, track, manage, and report the defects found during testing. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.
• C. Test execution tool: This tool type allows users to execute test cases automatically or semi-automatically and compare the actual results with the expected results. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.
• D. Backup tool: This tool type allows users to create copies of data or files and store them in a different location or device for recovery purposes. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.

You can find more information about configuration management tools in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 6, Section 6.4.

Beta testing is a type of acceptance testing that is normally performed by customers or potential customers at their own locations. Beta testing is done after the software product has passed the internal testing and quality assurance processes and is ready for release or deployment. Beta testing allows the customers or users to evaluate the software product in their real environment and provide feedback and suggestions for improvement. Beta testing can also help identify defects, compatibility issues, usability problems, or performance bottlenecks that might not have been detected during the internal testing. You can find more information about beta testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 2, Section 2.3.

Test estimation is the process of predicting the effort, time, and resources required for testing a software system. Test estimation depends on several factors that influence the scope, complexity, and quality of testing. Some of these factors are:

• Characteristics of the product: This factor indicates how difficult or challenging it is to test the software system based on its size, functionality, reliability, usability, performance, security, etc.
• Characteristics of the development process: This factor indicates how well or poorly the software system is developed based on the development methodology, standards, tools, techniques, etc.
• Characteristics of the test process: This factor indicates how effective or efficient the testing process is based on the test strategy, plan, design, execution, evaluation, etc.
• Characteristics of the test team: This factor indicates how skilled or experienced the test team is based on their knowledge, competence, motivation, communication, collaboration, etc.

The outcome of testing of previous test cycle is not a factor on which test estimation is dependent upon because it does not affect the effort, time, or resources required for testing the current test cycle. Rather, it is an outcome or consequence of test estimation that can provide feedback and lessons learned for improving future test estimations. You can find more information about test estimation in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 22.

The diagram lists various types of operating systems (LNX, W2K, WSP), databases (ORA, MSQ, SQL), and application servers (JBS, WSP) supported by the application under test. To test all possible combinations of these types, we need to multiply the number of options in each category. In this case, we have:

• 3 options for operating systems
• 3 options for databases
• 2 options for application servers

Therefore, we have 3 x 3 x 2 = 18 possible combinations to test.

However, if we look closely at the diagram, we can see that some combinations are not valid or feasible because they are not connected by lines. For example, we cannot test LNX with WSP as an application server because there is no line between them. Similarly, we cannot test W2K with JBS as an application server because there is no line between them. Therefore, we need to exclude these invalid combinations from our calculation.

If we count only the valid combinations that are connected by lines in the diagram, we get:

• 5 combinations for LNX (LNX-ORA-JBS, LNX-ORA-WSP, LNX-MSQ-JBS, LNX-MSQ-WSP, LNX-SQL-JBS)
• 5 combinations for W2K (W2K-ORA-WSP, W2K-MSQ-WSP, W2K-SQL-WSP)
• 5 combinations for WSP (WSP-ORA-JBS, WSP-ORA-WSP, WSP-MSQ-JBS, WSP-MSQ-WSP)

Therefore, we have 5 + 5 + 5 = 15 valid combinations to test.

You can find more information about testing combinations in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 4, Section 4.22.

How to fix the defect is not needed to specify in a defect report because it is not part of the information that is required to describe, reproduce, and prioritize the defect. How to fix the defect is part of the solution or resolution that is provided by the developers or maintainers who are responsible for correcting the defect. A defect report is a document that records and communicates the details of a defect found during testing. A defect report typically includes the following information:

• Defect ID: A unique identifier for the defect
• Summary: A brief description of the defect
• Severity and priority: An indication of how serious and urgent the defect is
• Test environment details: A description of the hardware, software, network, data, tools, etc., that were used when the defect was found
• How to reproduce the defect: A step-by-step procedure to recreate the defect
• Expected and actual results: A comparison of what should have happened and what actually happened when the defect occurred
• Attachments: Any additional information or evidence that can help understand or resolve the defect, such as screenshots, logs, files, etc.

You can find more information about defect reports in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 5.

The requirement given in

the image specifies

the charge for

a money transfer based on

the amount

of money transferred.

The amount can be anywhere from 1 to 5000 euros, with different charges applied for different ranges of amounts.

To test this requirement, we can use equivalence partitioning, which is a specification-based test technique that involves dividing the input or output values into groups or partitions that are expected to be treated in the same way by the system under test. For example, based on the requirement, we can identify the following equivalence partitions for the input amount:

• EP1: Amount < 1 (invalid)
• EP2: 1 <= Amount <= 1999 (valid, charge = 10 euros)
• EP3: 2000 <= Amount <= 5000 (valid, charge = 15 euros)
• EP4: Amount > 5000 (invalid)

The set of amounts that covers all equivalence partitions is C. 0-100-2000-6000. This set of amounts includes one value from each equivalence partition and ensures that all possible scenarios are tested. For example:

• TC1: Amount = 0 -> Invalid input
• TC2: Amount = 100 -> Valid input, charge = 10 euros
• TC3: Amount = 2000 -> Valid input, charge = 15 euros
• TC4: Amount = 6000 -> Invalid input

The other sets of amounts do not cover all equivalence partitions because they either include values that belong to the same partition or exclude values that belong to different partitions. For example:

• A. 0-1999-2000-5000 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes two values that belong to EP2 (1999 and 2000) and excludes any value that belongs to EP3.
• B. 1-2000-5001-10000 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes two values that belong to EP4 (5001 and 10000) and excludes any value that belongs to EP2.
• D. 99-1-2000-4999.99 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes a value that is not an integer (4999.99), which violates the assumption that only integer values can occur.

You can find more information about equivalence partitioning in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

The statement that does not describe how testing contributes to higher quality is “The testing of software demonstrates the absence of defects”. This statement is false because testing cannot prove that a software system is defect-free or has a certain level of quality because there might be some untested inputs or outputs that could reveal defects or failures. Testing can only provide information about the quality and risk level of a software system based on the observed behavior and results under certain conditions and assumptions. The other statements describe how testing contributes to higher quality by:

• Performing a review of the requirement specifications before implementing the system can enhance quality: This statement is true because reviewing the requirement specifications can help identify and prevent defects, ambiguities, inconsistencies, or incompleteness in the requirements before they are implemented in the system, which can save time and effort and improve customer satisfaction.
• Properly designed tests that pass reduce the level of risk in a system: This statement is true because passing tests can increase confidence that the system meets its requirements and expectations and provides value to the users and customers. Passing tests can also reduce the probability or impact of failures or defects in the system that could cause harm or loss.
• Software testing identifies defects, which can be used to improve development activities: This statement is true because identifying defects can help analyze and remove their causes and prevent them from recurring in future development activities. Identifying defects can also help improve development processes, methods, standards, tools, techniques, etc., by providing feedback and lessons learned.

You can find more information about how testing contributes to higher quality in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 1.

A requirements management tool may be considered as a test support tool because it can help support or enhance some aspects of testing activities or processes. A requirements management tool is a tool that allows users to manage and trace the requirements of a software system. A requirements management tool can help support or enhance testing activities or processes by:

• Providing a clear and consistent definition of what needs to be tested based on user needs and expectations
• Enabling traceability between requirements and test cases to ensure adequate and complete test coverage
• Supporting change management and impact analysis by identifying and tracking changes in requirements and their effects on testing activities and results

Risk-based testing is an approach to testing that prioritizes and focuses on testing activities based on the level of risk associated with each feature or function of the system under test. Risk-based testing aims to optimize the use of time, resources, and techniques for testing by identifying and addressing the most critical and likely sources of failure or harm in the system under test. Some examples of typical risk-based testing activities are:

• Brainstorming sessions are held with a wide variety of stakeholders to identify possible failures in the system: This activity is part of the risk identification process, which involves gathering information and opinions from different perspectives and sources to discover potential risks in the system under test.
• Tests are prioritized to ensure that those associated with critical parts of the system are executed earlier: This activity is part of the risk analysis and evaluation process, which involves assessing the probability and impact of each risk and ranking them according to their severity and importance.
• The focus of testing is shifted to an area in the system where tests find more defects than expected: This activity is part of the risk mitigation and monitoring process, which involves taking actions to reduce or eliminate the risks and tracking their status and progress.

The evaluation of a risk-management tool to decide which tool to use for future projects is not an example of a typical risk-based testing activity because it is not directly related to testing the system under test based on its risks. Rather, it is an example of a tool selection or evaluation activity, which involves comparing and choosing a tool that can support or enhance the testing process based on criteria such as functionality, usability, reliability, compatibility, cost, etc. You can find more information about risk-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 3, Section 3.4.

To achieve 100% statement coverage, you need to execute every statement in the code at least once. In this case, you need two test cases: one where condition A is true and one where condition A is false. This way, you can cover both the DO B statement and the END IF statement. You can find more information about statement coverage in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.31.

Regression testing is a type of testing that is performed after a software system has been changed or modified to verify that the changes have not introduced any new defects or adversely affected the existing functionality of the system. Regression testing can be performed when the software system undergoes different types of changes, such as:

• Corrective changes: Changes that fix defects or errors in the software system
• Adaptive changes: Changes that adapt the software system to new platforms or environments
• Perfective changes: Changes that improve the performance or usability of the software system
• Preventive changes: Changes that avoid potential problems or issues in the software system

In this case, the software system was re-deployed because the backend database was changed from one vendor to another, which is an example of an adaptive change. Therefore, the test manager decided to perform some functional tests on the re-deployed system to ensure that the change did not affect the functionality of the system. This is an example of regression testing.

The other types of testing mentioned in the question are not relevant for this scenario. For example:

• Non-functional testing: This type of testing verifies the non-functional aspects of the software system, such as reliability, performance, security, usability, etc.
• Structural testing: This type of testing verifies the internal structure or implementation of the software system, such as code, architecture, design, etc.
• Unit testing: This type of testing verifies individual components or units of software in isolation from other components or systems.

You can find more information about regression testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 2, Section 2.4.

The requirement given in the image specifies a field asking for the number of group members, which can be anywhere from 2 to 20 visitors. To test this requirement, we can use boundary value analysis, which is a specification-based test technique that involves testing the values at or near the boundaries of an equivalence partition. An equivalence partition is a set of values that are expected to be treated in the same way by the system under test. For example, based on the requirement, we can identify two equivalence partitions for the input group size:

• EP1: Group size < 2 (invalid)
• EP2: Group size = 2 (valid)
• EP3: 2 < Group size < 20 (valid)
• EP4: Group size = 20 (valid)
• EP5: Group size > 20 (invalid)

The boundary values for each equivalence partition are the values at or near the edges of the partition. For example, the boundary values for EP1 are -1 and 1. The boundary values for EP2 are 1 and 2. The boundary values for EP3 are 2 and 19. And so on.

To test this requirement using boundary value analysis, we need to select one value from each boundary and test it with different combinations of valid and invalid inputs. For example, we can select the following values:

• BV1: Group size = -1 (from EP1)
• BV2: Group size = 1 (from EP1 and EP2)
• BV3: Group size = 2 (from EP2 and EP3)
• BV4: Group size = 19 (from EP3 and EP4)
• BV5: Group size = 20 (from EP4 and EP5)
• BV6: Group size = 21 (from EP5)

We can then create test cases using these values and different combinations of valid and invalid inputs. For example:

• TC1: Group size = -1 -> Invalid input
• TC2: Group size = 1 -> Invalid input
• TC3: Group size = 2 -> Valid input
• TC4: Group size = 19 -> Valid input
• TC5: Group size = 20 -> Valid input
• TC6: Group size = 21 -> Invalid input

Therefore, we need a minimum of 6 valid test cases to achieve 100% boundary value coverage based on input group size.

You can find more information about boundary value analysis in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

Maintenance testing is a type of testing that is performed after a software product has been delivered and deployed to ensure that it still meets its requirements and functions correctly after changes have been made to it or to its environment. Changes can include corrective changes (fixing defects), adaptive changes (adapting to new platforms or environments), perfective changes (improving performance or usability), or preventive changes (avoiding potential problems). One of the appropriate reasons for maintenance testing is to verify that the software product works as expected after upgrading the operating system, which is an example of an adaptive change. Other reasons for maintenance testing can include verifying that the software product works as expected after fixing defects, adding new features, improving performance, or preventing future issues. You can find more information about maintenance testing in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 12.

Test techniques are methods or procedures that can be used to design, execute, or evaluate test cases. Test techniques can be classified into two categories: specification-based and structure-based. Specification-based test techniques, also known as black-box test techniques, are based on the requirements, specifications, or expectations of the system under test. They do not require any knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system. Some examples of specification-based test techniques are use case testing, state transition testing, decision table testing, etc. Structure-based test techniques, also known as white-box test techniques, are based on the code, architecture, or design of the system under test. They require some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system. Some examples of structure-based test techniques are control flow testing, data flow testing, branch testing, statement testing, etc. You can find more information about test techniques in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 41.

The extent of testing required for a software product or feature depends on several factors that influence the level of quality and risk involved in delivering or deploying it. Some of these factors are:

• Budget to do testing: This factor indicates how much money is available or allocated for conducting the test activities, which affects the scope, depth, duration, and resources of testing.
• Time available to do testing: This factor indicates how much time is available or allocated for conducting the test activities, which affects the schedule, frequency, speed, and coverage of testing.
• Level of risk of the product or feature: This factor indicates how much impact or harm a failure or defect in the product or feature can cause to the users, customers, stakeholders, or environment, which affects the priority, intensity, complexity, and rigor of testing.
• Complexity of the product or feature: This factor indicates how difficult or challenging it is to understand, design, implement, or maintain the product or feature, which affects the effort, skill, technique, and tool required for testing.

A particular tester involved in testing is not a deciding factor in determining the extent of testing required because it does not affect the quality or risk level of the product or feature being tested. Rather, it is an outcome or consequence of deciding how much testing is needed based on other factors such as budget, time, risk, and complexity. You can find more information about determining the extent of testing in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 2, Section 2.12.

Testing has several objectives that aim to provide information and confidence about the quality and risk level of the software product and to support decision-making and improvement processes. Some of these objectives are:

• Finding defects: Testing is the process of finding defects or failures in the software product that do not meet its requirements or expectations.
• Providing information for decision-making: Testing is the process of providing information about the quality and risk level of the software product based on the observed behavior and results under certain conditions and assumptions. This information can help stakeholders make informed decisions about releasing, deploying, accepting, or improving the software product.
• Gaining confidence about the level of quality of the software: Testing is the process of gaining confidence that the software product meets its requirements and expectations and provides value to the users and customers.
• Analyzing and removing the cause of failures: Testing is not only the process of finding defects but also the process of analyzing and removing the cause of failures that lead to defects. This objective is related to debugging, which is a development activity that involves locating, diagnosing, and fixing errors in the code or design of the software product.

You can find more information about the objectives of testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 1, Section 1.2.

Pair programming is a software development technique where two programmers work together on the same code at the same workstation. One programmer, called the driver, writes the code while the other programmer, called the navigator, reviews the code and provides feedback and suggestions. Pair programming is not only a coding technique but also an informal review method because it involves constant communication and collaboration between the programmers who check each other’s work and share their knowledge and skills. Pair programming can improve the quality and productivity of software development by reducing defects, increasing code readability, enhancing learning opportunities, and fostering creativity and innovation. Pair programming is usually used in agile methods such as Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum, or Kanban. It is not an alternative term for code inspection, which is a formal review method where a group of reviewers examine a piece of code in a structured and systematic way following predefined rules and roles. It is also not done with developer and tester pairing together because pair programming requires both programmers to have similar levels of expertise and familiarity with the code they are working on. You can find more information about pair programming in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 31.

One of the basic principles of testing is that for a software system, it is not possible under normal conditions to test all input and output combinations because they are too many and too complex to cover within a reasonable time and budget. Therefore, testers have to select a subset of inputs and outputs that are representative and relevant for testing based on criteria such as requirements, risks, priorities, etc. This principle implies that testing cannot prove that a software system is defect-free or has a certain level of quality because there might be some untested inputs or outputs that could reveal defects or failures. Testing can only provide information about the quality and risk level of a software system based on the observed behavior and results under certain conditions and assumptions. You can find more information about the basic principles of testing in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 11.

A software company decided to buy a commercial application for its accounting operations. As part of the evaluation process, the company decided to assemble a team to test a number of candidate applications. The most suitable team for this goal would be a team with a mix of software testers and experts from the accounting department. This team would have the following advantages:

• Software testers have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company. They can also use tools and techniques to support their testing activities and provide reliable and objective information about the quality and risk level of each candidate application.
• Experts from the accounting department have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application. They can also provide feedback and suggestions for improvement based on their needs and expectations as end users or customers.

The other teams mentioned in the question are not as suitable for this goal as they are for other purposes or scenarios. For example:

• A team from an outsourcing company which specializes in testing accounting software: This team might have the skills and experience to test accounting software, but they might not have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the specific requirements and criteria of the company that wants to buy the application. They might also lack the communication and collaboration with the stakeholders of the company who are involved in the evaluation process.
• A team of users from the accounting department that will need to use the application on a daily basis: This team might have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application, but they might not have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company. They might also lack the tools and techniques to support their testing activities and provide reliable and objective information about the quality and risk level of each candidate application.
• A team from the company’s testing team, due to their experience in testing software: This team might have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company, but they might not have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application. They might also lack the feedback and suggestions for improvement based on the needs and expectations of the end users or customers.

The Test Analysis and Design activity of the test process is the activity where test conditions and test cases are identified and specified based on the test objectives and criteria. The Test Analysis and Design activity also involves identifying and preparing the necessary test data and test environment to support the test execution. Some of the tasks of the Test Analysis and Design activity are:

• Reviewing the test basis: This task involves reviewing the requirements, specifications, design documents, or other sources of information that form the basis for testing.
• Identifying test conditions: This task involves identifying what needs to be tested based on the test basis and objectives.
• Designing and prioritizing test cases: This task involves designing specific scenarios or steps to verify each test condition and assigning priorities to them based on their importance or risk level.
• Identifying necessary test data to support the test conditions and test cases: This task involves identifying what data is needed to execute each test case and how to obtain or generate it.
• Identifying and preparing the test environment: This task involves identifying what hardware, software, network, data, tools, etc., are needed to execute the test cases and how to set up and maintain them.

Measuring the percentage of prepared test cases with what was actually prepared is not a task of the Test Analysis and Design activity because it does not involve identifying or specifying anything related to testing. Rather, it is a task of the Test Monitoring and Control activity, which involves measuring and reporting the progress and status of testing against the planned activities and criteria. You can find more information about the Test Analysis and Design activity in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 31.

Confirmation testing, also known as re-testing, is the process of testing a defect that has been fixed to verify that it has been resolved and does not affect other parts of the system. Confirmation testing is usually done by the same tester who reported the defect and using the same test case that revealed the defect. You can find more information about confirmation testing in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 3, Section 3.21.

To cover 100% statement coverage, we need to execute every statement in the code at least once. To cover 100% decision coverage, we need to execute every branch in the code at least once. The minimum number of test cases required to achieve both statement and decision coverage is 4 for statement and 5 for decision. Here is one possible set of test cases:

| Test Case | Input | Output | Statement Coverage | Decision Coverage | | TC1 | Walking = True, Midnight = False, Raining = False, Running = False | Take umbrella | S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 | D1-T, D2-T | | TC2 | Walking = False, Midnight = True, Raining = False, Running = False | Search light | S1, S2, S6, S7 | D1-F, D3-T | | TC3 | Walking = False, Midnight = False, Raining = True, Running = False | Take umbrella and search light | S1, S2, S6, S8, S9 | D1-F, D3-F, D4-T | | TC4 | Walking = False, Midnight = False, Raining = False, Running = True | Keep doing what you were doing | S1, S2, S6, S8, S10 | D1-F, D3-F, D4-F |

A key difference between black box and white box test design techniques is that white box techniques can measure the extent of code coverage, while black box techniques cannot. Code coverage is a measure of how much of the code of a system or component has been executed by a test or a set of tests. White box techniques use software code to derive test cases that cover specific aspects of the code, such as statements, branches, paths, or data flows. White box techniques can use tools or methods to measure the code coverage achieved by the test cases and identify any gaps or redundancies. Black box techniques use functional design specifications to derive test cases that cover specific aspects of the functionality, behavior, or quality of the system or component, such as inputs, outputs, equivalence classes, boundary values, states, transitions, etc. Black box techniques do not use or access the code of the system or component, and therefore cannot measure the code coverage.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.3 and 4.4

Estimating the cost of testing is not a typical task for a test leader. Estimating the cost of testing is usually done by project managers or senior managers who have access to budgetary information and authority to allocate resources for testing activities. Test leaders may provide input or feedback on estimating the cost of testing, but they are not responsible for it3 states this as follows:

Estimating costs for test activities within a project is typically done by project managers who have overall responsibility for budgeting and resource allocation within a project. Test leaders may assist project managers in estimating costs for test activities by providing information on test effort, test environment, test tools, etc., but they do not have final authority or accountability for cost estimation.

A, B, and C are incorrect answers. Selecting the test approach (A), coordinating the test strategy (B), and preparing and acquiring test data © are typical tasks for a test leader. Selecting the test approach is part of test planning and control, which involves defining the test objectives, scope, strategy, resources, schedule, risks, metrics, etc. Coordinating the test strategy is part of test monitoring and control, which involves measuring and evaluating test progress and quality against objectives and criteria. Preparing and acquiring test data is part of test implementation and execution, which involves developing and prioritizing test cases, creating test data and writing test procedures, checking test environment has been set up correctly, executing test cases, etc.

Integration testing is the process of testing the interactions between different components or subsystems of a system. It has the following characteristics:

• It can be done in an incremental manner, meaning that components or subsystems are integrated and tested one by one until the whole system is integrated and tested.
• It is usually done before system testing, which is the process of testing the system as a whole against its requirements and specifications.
• It includes functional tests, which are tests that verify the functionality and behavior of the system or its components.
• It includes non-functional tests, which are tests that verify the quality attributes of the system or its components, such as performance, reliability, security, etc.

Therefore, statements I, III, and IV are correct.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 5.1.2 and 5.2.2

Provides developers with information to isolate the failure is the incident report objective that this excerpt satisfies, because it gives details about how to recreate the failure using a specific test file and location . An incident report is a document that records any event that deviates from the expected or desired behaviour of the software under test . One of its objectives is to provide developers with information to isolate the failure, which means to identify and locate the cause of the failure in the software . The other options are not incident report objectives that this excerpt satisfies. Option B is wrong, because this excerpt does not belong to an incident report, but rather to a test report. A test report is a document that summarizes the results and outcomes of testing activities . Option C is wrong, because this excerpt does not provide project managers with information on the project risks, which means to identify and assess the potential threats or uncertainties that may affect the project objectives or outcomes . Option D is wrong, because this excerpt does not provide test managers with information to report test progress, which means to measure and communicate how much of the planned testing activities have been completed or remain to be done .

Providing developers with information to isolate the failure is the incident report objective that this excerpt satisfies. The excerpt provides the name and location of the test file that was used to recreate the failure, which can help developers to reproduce and debug the failure in their own environment. defines this objective as follows:

One of the objectives of an incident report is to provide developers with information to isolate the failure. This means providing enough details and evidence for developers to understand what caused the failure and how to fix it. This may include information such as:

• Steps to reproduce: A sequence of steps that can be followed to recreate the failure.
• Test data: The inputs that were used to execute the test case that caused the failure.
• Test environment: The configuration and settings of the hardware and software that were used to execute the test case that caused the failure.
• Attachments: Any screenshots, logs, files, or other artifacts that can help to demonstrate or explain the failure.

B, C, and D are incorrect answers. Providing ideas for test process improvement (B) is not an incident report objective that this excerpt satisfies, as it does not provide any suggestions or feedback on how to improve the test process or prevent similar failures in the future. Not belonging in an incident report © is not true, as this excerpt belongs in an incident report as part of the incident details section. Providing test leaders with information to report test progress (D) is not an incident report objective that this excerpt satisfies, as it does not provide any metrics or indicators on how much testing has been done or how many failures have been found.

According to the syllabus, state transition testing is a technique that tests the behaviour of a system or component based on its transitions between states. A state transition diagram is a graphical representation of the states and transitions of a system or component. A test case that uses valid transitions to exercise all states should cover all the nodes and edges in the diagram. The answer D is correct because it covers all the four states (SS, S1, S2, S3) and all the five transitions (SS-S1, S1-S3, S3-S2, S2-SS, SS-S3) in the diagram. The other answers are incorrect because they either miss some states or transitions or use more transitions than necessary.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.4.1, page 47-48.

Finding the root cause of a defect is not a major responsibility of a tester. Finding the root cause of a defect is usually done by developers who have access to the source code and can debug it to identify and fix the defect. Testers are responsible for reporting and tracking defects, but not for finding their root causes2 states this as follows:

The role of testers is to find defects in software products and report them to developers who are responsible for fixing them. Testers do not need to know how to fix defects or find their root causes, as this requires access to the source code and debugging skills that are typically possessed by developers.

A, C, and D are incorrect answers. Producing interim test reports, writing the test specification, and reporting and tracking bugs are major responsibilities of a tester. Producing interim test reports is part of test monitoring and control, which involves measuring and evaluating test progress and quality against objectives and criteria. Writing the test specification is part of test analysis and design, which involves identifying test conditions based on test basis and designing test cases based on test techniques. Reporting and tracking bugs is part of test implementation and execution, which involves logging incidents when observed outcomes deviate from expected outcomes and tracking their status until closure.

Maintenance testing is important after migration, retirement or enhancement of an existing system. defines maintenance testing as follows:

Maintenance testing is a type of software testing that occurs after changes have been made to a system in order to ensure that no new defects have been introduced and that the system still meets its original requirements and specifications.

Regression testing (A) is important after any change in the system that may affect existing functionality. Operational acceptance testing (B) is important before deploying a system into production environment. System testing © is important after integrating all components of a system into a complete system.

According to the syllabus, traceability between the test basis and test work products is the ability to link each element of the test basis to the various test work products associated with that element, such as test conditions, test cases, test procedures, and test results. Traceability between the test basis and test work products has several benefits, such as evaluating the extent of test coverage, analyzing the impact of changes, making testing auditable, meeting IT governance criteria, improving the understandability of test reports, and providing information to assess product quality, process capability, and project progress. The answer B is incorrect because it is not a benefit of traceability between the test basis and test work products. It obscures the impact of changes. On the contrary, traceability helps to reveal the impact of changes by showing which elements of the test basis are affected by a change and which test work products need to be updated or executed accordingly. The other answers are correct because they are examples of benefits of traceability between the test basis and test work products.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 1.4.4, page 18-19.

Using boundary analysis for x, the test cases are required to cover the values on and around the boundaries of x > 0 and x < 100. Therefore, the test cases should include -1, 0, 1, 99, 100, and 101. The value 0.1 is not a boundary value, and the values -500 and 500 are too far from the boundaries to be relevant.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) Syllabus - ASTQB, Section 4.2.2, Page 34

Test control is a test management activity that involves making decisions based on information from test monitoring and test progress reporting. Test control activities include:

• Re-prioritizing tests because of time pressure
• Changing the test schedule due to availability of a test environment
• Setting entry and exit criteria for test levels or test activities
• Initiating corrective actions to resolve deviations from the test plan

Writing test suspension and resumption criteria in the test plan is not a test control activity, but rather a test planning activity. Test suspension and resumption criteria are used to define when to stop and resume testing in case of unforeseen events or issues that affect the test execution.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 2.4.2 and 2.4.3

According to the user story checklist, the user story must contain the reason for the need, which is usually expressed by using the word “so that” or “because”. For example, the user story could be rewritten as:

User Story US2018 As a bank account customer, I would like to transfer money from one account to another using the mobile banking application by using the drag and drop feature, so that I can easily manage my finances.

This way, the user story provides a clear value proposition and a justification for the need. The reason also helps to define the scope and priority of the user story, as well as to verify the acceptance criteria.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Chapter 5.2.1 User Stories, p. 62-631; ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Sample Exam Questions and Answers, Question 83, p. 232

Traceability is the ability to identify related items in documentation and software, such as requirements, design specifications, code modules, test cases, test results, etc. Traceability helps to ensure that all requirements are covered by tests, that all tests are linked to requirements, and that any changes in requirements or software can be traced to their impact on other items.

 Equivalence partitioning is a black box test design technique2. A black box technique is a technique that uses the external behaviour or specification of a system as a test basis to derive test cases without referring to its internal structure or logic2. Equivalence partitioning is a technique that divides the input domain of a system into partitions of equivalent data2. Each partition should contain data that is expected to be treated the same by the system2. Therefore, only one test case input from each partition is needed to test the system’s behaviour2. Therefore, equivalence partitioning is a black box test design technique.

Test Cases 1, 2 and 3 are all valid, because they cover all the possible combinations of conditions and actions in the decision table. Test Case 1 covers the case where the employee is not a car or motorcycle driver, which leads to the action of not allowing the expense claim. Test Case 2 covers the case where the employee drives a diesel car with an engine size greater than 1600cc, which leads to the action of accepting the expense claim at band C. Test Case 3 covers the case where the employee rides a motorcycle, which leads to the action of accepting the expense claim at band A12.

According to the syllabus, exploratory testing is a technique that involves simultaneous learning, test design and test execution. A tester dynamically designs and executes tests based on their knowledge, exploration of the test item and the results of previous tests. A time-boxed test session is a fixed period of time during which testing is performed. A test charter is a document that contains test objectives, scope, risks and other information to guide the testing. The answer A is correct because it describes an approach that can be used for exploratory testing. The other answers are incorrect because they describe other techniques, such as error guessing (B), compliance testing © and user acceptance testing (D).

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.5.2, page 51-52.

The fundamental test process consists of five main activities: test planning and control, test analysis, test design, test implementation and execution, and test evaluation and reporting. During the test analysis activity, the testability of requirements is evaluated, meaning that the requirements are checked for clarity, completeness, consistency, verifiability, etc. Test analysis also involves identifying test conditions based on the test basis, such as requirements, specifications, user stories, or use cases.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 2.4.1 and 4.2.2

Managing the incidents in a spreadsheet posted on the intranet is the best option for a QA manager of a start-up company who needs to implement within a week a low cost incident management tool. A spreadsheet is a simple and flexible tool that can be used to record, track, and report incidents. Posting the spreadsheet on the intranet can make it accessible and visible to the relevant stakeholders. This option can be implemented quickly and cheaply, without requiring much training or maintenance3 suggests this as follows:

A spreadsheet is a common tool that can be used for incident management, especially for small or simple projects. A spreadsheet can be used to create an incident report template that includes the necessary information and fields for each incident. The spreadsheet can also be used to sort, filter, group, or analyze the incidents based on various criteria. The spreadsheet can be shared or published on a network or web location that can be accessed by the project team and other stakeholders.

A, C, and D are not good options for a QA manager of a start-up company who needs to implement within a week a low cost incident management tool. Managing the incidents through E-mails and phone calls (A) is not a good option, as it can be inefficient, unreliable, and inconsistent. E-mails and phone calls can be easily lost, overlooked, or forgotten, and they do not provide a centralized or structured way of recording, tracking, or reporting incidents. Purchasing and deploying an incident management tool © is not a good option, as it can be expensive, time-consuming, and complex. An incident management tool may require licensing fees, installation costs, configuration efforts, training sessions, and maintenance support. Documenting incidents on a large board in the lab (D) is not a good option, as it can be impractical, insecure, and incomplete. A large board in the lab may not have enough space or structure to document all the incidents in detail, and it may not be accessible or visible to all the stakeholders. A large board in the lab may also expose confidential or sensitive information to unauthorized people.

Both functional and structural approaches are used in integration tests. Functional testing verifies that the integrated components work together as expected, while structural testing checks the internal structure and logic of the integrated components1 explains this in more detail:

Integration testing is a level of software testing where individual units are combined and tested as a group. The purpose of this level of testing is to expose faults in the interaction between integrated units. Test drivers and test stubs are used to assist in Integration Testing.

Integration testing can be done in two ways:

• Bottom-up Integration Testing: Bottom up integration testing begins with unit testing, followed by tests of progressively higher-level combinations of units called modules or builds.
• Top-down Integration Testing: In top down integration testing, the highest-level modules are tested first and progressively lower-level modules are tested after that.

They should be involved in reviewing requirements or user stories as soon as drafts are available is the option that represents good testing practice for testers, irrespective of the software lifecycle model used, because it allows testers to provide early feedback, identify potential defects, and clarify test objectives and scope1 . Early involvement of testers in reviewing requirements or user stories can improve the quality and testability of the software and reduce the cost and effort of testing1 . The other options do not represent good testing practice for testers, irrespective of the software lifecycle model used. Option A is not a good option, because they should start test analysis as early as possible, not when the corresponding development level is complete, to avoid delays and inefficiencies in testing1 . Option C is not a good option, because they should ensure that different test objectives apply to each test level, not the same test objectives, to avoid redundancy and gaps in testing1 . Option D is not a good option, because they should minimize the ratio of development levels to test levels to reduce project costs, but rather balance the development and test levels according to the project needs and risks1 .

Exploratory testing is by definition a reactive test approach, because it involves designing and executing tests based on the tester’s knowledge, experience and intuition, and reacting to the actual behavior and feedback of the system under test. Exploratory testing does not follow a predefined test plan or test cases, but rather adapts to the situation and learns from the results.

After completing the tool selection and a successful proof-of-concept, introducing the selected tool into an organization generally starts with a pilot project, which has the following objectives12:

• Gaining in-depth knowledge about the tool, understanding both its strengths and weaknesses
• Evaluating how the tool fits with existing processes and practices, and determining what would need to change
• Assessing whether the benefits will be achieved at reasonable cost
• Identifying and resolving any technical and organizational issues before deploying the tool on a larger scale
• Providing training, coaching, and mentoring for users of the tool
• Defining metrics to measure the success of the tool deployment

Therefore, the option D is the most typical objective of running a pilot project, as it is essential to ensure the compatibility and suitability of the tool with the current way of working, and to identify any potential risks or challenges that may arise from the tool introduction12.

The other options are not typical objectives of running a pilot project, because they are either part of the tool selection process, or the outcomes of the pilot project. They are:

• To establish whether the tool is available for a free trial period (and for how long) (A). This is part of the tool selection process, which involves gathering information about the tool features, costs, support, and availability12. This should be done before running a pilot project, as it helps to narrow down the list of potential tools and to conduct a proof-of-concept12.
• To provide training, coaching, and mentoring for users of the tool (B). This is an outcome of the pilot project, which aims to increase the competence and confidence of the tool users and to facilitate the tool adoption12. This should be done during and after the pilot project, as it helps to ensure the effective and efficient use of the tool and to address any issues or feedback from the users12.
• To develop a clear set of requirements and objective criteria against which the tool can be evaluated ©. This is also part of the tool selection process, which involves defining the tool requirements based on the needs and expectations of the stakeholders, and establishing the evaluation criteria based on the benefits and risks of the tool12. This should also be done before running a pilot project, as it helps to compare and rank the potential tools and to select the most suitable one12.

References:

• ISTQB Foundation Level 2018 syllabus
• Chapter 6 - Tool Support for Testing | PPT

Non-functional testing is a type of testing that focuses on the quality attributes of the system or its components, such as performance, reliability, usability, security, etc. Non-functional testing can be done at any test level, depending on the test objectives and scope. In this case, the test types that are non-functional tests are:

• Acceptance test: A test level that focuses on verifying whether the system meets the user’s needs and expectations, and whether it is acceptable for delivery or deployment.
• Stress test: A type of performance testing that evaluates the behavior of the system under extreme or abnormal conditions, such as high load, limited resources, or concurrent access.
• Reliability test: A type of testing that evaluates the ability of the system or its components to perform their required functions under stated conditions for a specified period of time.

Therefore, statements I, III, and V are correct.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 2.3 and 5.4

The attributes that best match each level of testing are as follows14:

• Component testing: Stubs and drivers are often used (I), as they simulate the behavior of missing or incomplete components.
• Integration testing: Testing for functional and non-functional characteristics (VI), as integration testing verifies that components interact correctly and meet their specified requirements.
• System testing: The test environment should correspond to the production environment (II), as system testing evaluates the system’s compliance with its specified requirements under realistic conditions.
• Acceptance testing: Testing can be based on use cases (IV), as acceptance testing validates that the system meets the user’s needs and expectations

Checking that at least 50% of decisions have been exercised by a test case suite is not a valid use of decision coverage, because it does not meet the minimum criterion of decision coverage, which is to exercise all possible outcomes of each decision in the software under test . Decision coverage is a technique that measures how much of the logic or branching of the software under test has been exercised by the test cases . The other options are valid uses of decision coverage. Option A is a valid use of decision coverage, because it can check that all decisions have been exercised in a single program . Option B is a valid use of decision coverage, because it can check that all decisions have been exercised in a business process . Option C is a valid use of decision coverage, because it can check that all calls from one program module to another have been made correctly .

The purpose of selecting a test technique is to increase the effectiveness of the test process by creating tests with higher chance of finding bugs. Test techniques do not define the number of regression cycles, nor are they the only way to test a software application. Test techniques may help reduce the number of tests, but that is not their primary goal.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) Syllabus - ASTQB, Section 4.1.1, Page 29

The correct answer is A, as it includes the items that would be most useful to include in the defect report. A defect report is a document that describes and records any anomaly found during testing2. A defect report typically includes information such as:

• The expected results
• The actual results
• A description of the defect in order to reproduce, including screenshots and database dumps

These items are useful to include in the defect report, as they help the developers to understand and fix the defect2. Option B is incorrect, as it includes an item that would not be useful to include in the defect report. The urgency and priority to fix this is not useful to include in the defect report, as it is determined by the test manager or other stakeholders based on various factors such as severity, impact, risk, and business value2. Option C is incorrect, as it omits an item that would be useful to include in the defect report. The actual results are useful to include in the defect report, as they show what happened when the defect occurred2. Option D is incorrect, as it omits two items that would be useful to include in the defect report. The expected results and a description of the defect in order to reproduce are useful to include in the defect report, as they show what should have happened and how to replicate the defect2. References: 2, Section 2.9

The correct answer is D, as DT1 and DT4 would achieve full coverage of the full decision table when combined with the test cases that have already been generated for rules 1 and 4. Decision table testing is a black-box test technique that uses a table to show combinations of inputs and their associated outputs1. In this case, the inputs are the account type, the amount entered, and the expected result. The outputs are the actions taken by the ATM system. The decision table has eight rules, each corresponding to a possible combination of inputs and outputs. The test cases that have already been generated for rules 1 and 4 are:

• TC1: Account = Checking, Amount = $600, Expected Result = Process the transaction
• TC4: Account = Savings, Amount = Not entered, Expected Result = Generate an error message

The additional test cases are:

• DT1: Account = Checking, Amount = Not entered, Expected Result = Generate an error message
• DT2: Account = Savings, Amount = $100, Expected Result = Process the transaction
• DT3: Account = Checking, Amount = $100, Expected Result = Process the transaction
• DT4: Account = Savings, Amount = $600, Expected Result = Generate an error message

To achieve full coverage of the full decision table, two more test cases are needed that cover the remaining six rules. DT1 and DT4 cover these rules, as shown in the table below:

Therefore, option D is the correct answer. Options A, B, and C are incorrect, as they do not cover all the rules in the decision table. References: 1, Section 4.2.5

 To ensure that users can navigate to all fields on the screen does not reflect structural testing, but rather functional testing or usability testing1 . Structural testing verifies whether the software meets the specified design and code standards by measuring aspects such as code coverage, complexity, or coupling1 . The other options reflect structural testing at different levels of granularity. Option A reflects structural testing at the system level by testing all paths that users could take through the screen menu system1 . Option B reflects structural testing at the component level by ensuring that 100% decision coverage is achieved for each system component1 . Option C reflects structural testing at the component integration level by testing all branches of component calls within the application call graph

Error, fault, failure is the option that describes the causal chain in the correct sequence1 . The causal chain is a model that explains how defects are introduced and manifested in software1 . An error is a human action or decision that produces an incorrect result1 . A fault is a defect in the software caused by an error1 . A failure is an incorrect behaviour of the software caused by a fault1 . The other options do not describe the causal chain in the correct sequence. Option B uses synonyms for error (mistake), fault (bug), and failure (defect), but does not follow the correct order. Option C uses synonyms for error (mistake) and fault (failure), but does not follow the correct order and confuses fault with failure. Option D uses synonyms for fault (bug) and error (error), but does not follow the correct order and confuses failure with error.

Static testing and dynamic testing are two types of testing that differ in the way they evaluate the software or system under test. Static testing is a type of testing that does not involve executing the software or system under test, but rather analyzing it using various techniques, such as reviews, inspections, walkthroughs, checklists, static analysis tools, etc. Dynamic testing is a type of testing that involves executing the software or system under test using test cases and comparing the actual results with the expected results. Static testing techniques, such as reviews, can be undertaken before dynamic testing, making defects cheaper to remove. This is because static testing can help find defects and improve the quality of any work product at any stage of the software development lifecycle, before they become more costly and difficult to fix during dynamic testing or after deployment.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 3.1 and 3.2

The correct answer is D, as it describes a task that is most likely to be performed by the tester. A tester is a person who performs testing activities such as planning, designing, executing, and evaluating tests2. Creating the detailed test execution schedule is one of these activities, as it involves defining the order and timing of test cases to be executed based on various factors such as dependencies, risks, priorities, and resources2. Option A is incorrect, as it describes a task that is most likely to be performed by the test manager. A test manager is a person who leads and manages testing activities such as establishing test policies and strategies, managing test teams and stakeholders, monitoring and controlling test progress and quality, and reporting on test results2. Developing a test strategy and test policy for the organization is one of these activities, as it involves defining the overall approach and objectives for testing at an organizational level2. Option B is incorrect, as it describes a task that is most likely to be performed by the test analyst. A test analyst is a person who supports testing activities such as analyzing requirements and risks, designing and prioritizing tests, evaluating test coverage and traceability, and reviewing work products2. Introducing suitable metrics for measuring test progress is one of these activities, as it involves defining and collecting quantitative data to monitor and control various aspects of testing such as efficiency, effectiveness, quality, and maturity2. Option C is incorrect, as it describes a task that is most likely to be performed by the test leader. A test leader is a person who coordinates testing activities such as planning and estimating tests, allocating tasks and resources, supervising test execution and evaluation, communicating with stakeholders, and resolving issues2. Promoting and advocating the test team within the organization is one of these activities, as it involves demonstrating the value and benefits of testing to other parties such as management, developers, customers, and users2. References: 2, Section 2.3

b & c are debugging activities, because they involve locating the cause of failure and fixing the defect in the software . Debugging is the process of finding and removing the causes of software failures . The other options are not debugging activities, but rather testing activities. Option A is a testing activity, because it involves identifying a failure in the software by comparing the expected and actual results . Option D is a testing activity, because it involves checking the fix has resolved the failure by re-testing the software .

 Exploratory testing would be a good test technique to use when under severe time pressure, because it is a type of experience-based technique that allows testers to design and execute tests based on their intuition, knowledge, and skills, without following a predefined test plan or test cases . Exploratory testing can be useful when testing time is very limited, as it can help to find important defects quickly and adapt to changing requirements or situations . The other options are not good test techniques to use when under severe time pressure. Option B is not a good option, because structure-based testing is a type of technique that requires analysing the code or design of the software under test to measure aspects such as code coverage, complexity, or coupling . Structure-based testing can be time-consuming and may not be feasible or effective when testing time is very limited . Option C is not a good option, because specification-based testing is a type of technique that requires analysing the requirements or specifications of the software under test to design test cases that verify the expected functionality or behaviour . Specification-based testing can also be time-consuming and may not be suitable or efficient when testing time is very limited . Option D is not a good option, because use case testing is a type of technique that requires analysing the use cases or scenarios of the software under test to design test cases that verify the end-to-end user interactions and outcomes . Use case testing can also be time-consuming and may not be relevant or effective when testing time is very limited .