iSQI CTFL_Syll_4.0 Dumps

This answer is correct because in Agile software development, work product documentation, such as user stories, acceptance criteria, or test cases, tends to be lightweight and concise, as the focus is on working software and frequent communication rather than comprehensive documentation. Manual tests tend to be often unscripted, as they are often produced using experience-based test techniques, such as error guessing or exploratory testing, which rely on the tester’s skills, knowledge, and creativity to find defects and provide feedback. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.2, Section 3.2.1.2

To determine the correct execution order that minimizes the number of configuration switches and respects the dependencies, we need to consider the following:

Initial Configuration: CONF1.

Dependencies:

TC1 depends on nothing.

TC2 depends on TC4.

TC3 depends on TC4.

TC4 depends on nothing.

TC5 depends on TC1.

Configuration Requirements:

TC1 requires CONF2.

TC2 requires CONF2.

TC3 requires CONF1.

TC4 requires CONF1.

TC5 requires CONF2.

Given the initial configuration is CONF1, start with test cases that can run on CONF1 and respect the dependencies. Then switch to CONF2 only when necessary. The optimal order to minimize configuration switches is:

Start with TC4 (no dependencies, CONF1).

Continue with TC3 (depends on TC4, CONF1).

Switch to CONF2.

Execute TC2 (depends on TC4, CONF2).

Continue with TC1 (no dependencies, CONF2).

Finally, execute TC5 (depends on TC1, CONF2).

Therefore, the correct order is:

TC4 (CONF1)

TC3 (CONF1)

TC2 (CONF2)

TC1 (CONF2)

TC5 (CONF2)

Thus, the answer is A. TC4, TC3, TC2, TC1, TC5.

When deciding on the order of test execution based on priorities and dependencies, the correct sequence should consider both the priority levels and any dependencies between test cases. Here’s the analysis:

Test B has the highest priority (1) and depends on Test D.

Test D should be executed before Test B.

Test C has a medium priority (2) and depends on Test A.

Test A can be executed at any time since it has no dependencies.

Considering these dependencies and priorities, Test D should be executed first, followed by Test B. After that, Test A and finally Test C. Therefore, the correct sequence is D-B-A-C​​.

In a typical formal review process, the role usually responsible for documenting the findings, such as action items, decisions, and recommendations, made by the review team is the recorder. The recorder ensures that all discussions and conclusions are accurately captured and documented for future reference and follow-up.

Option D correctly explains what is represented by the lines A, B and the axes X, Y in a testing metrics chart. According to option D:

X-axis represents Time

Y-axis represents Count

Line A represents Number of open bugs

Line B represents Total number of executed tests

This information is essential in understanding and analyzing the testing metrics of a completed project.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Section 2.5.1, Page 35.

A pilot project is a small-scale experiment or trial that is conducted to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and suitability of a test automation tool before implementing it on a larger scale1.

The objectives of a pilot project may vary depending on the context and scope of the test automation initiative, but some common ones are2:

To get familiar with the functionality and options of the tool

To check how the tool fits to the existing test processes and environment

To assess the benefits and challenges of using the tool

To decide upon standards and guidelines for tool implementation and usage

To estimate the costs and resources required for tool deployment and maintenance

Therefore, option C is not a valid objective of a pilot project, as it is not necessary to train all testers on using the tool at this stage. Training all testers on using the tool would be more appropriate after the tool has been selected and approved for full-scale implementation, and after the standards and guidelines have been established. Training all testers on using the tool during the pilot project would be inefficient, costly, and premature, as the tool may not be suitable or effective for the intended purpose, or may be replaced by another tool later.

References:

1: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 82

2: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 83

: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 84

: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 85

Static testing involves reviewing the code, requirements, and design documents without executing the code. It is effective in finding certain types of bugs that do not require the code to be run. One common example of such a bug is variables that are declared but not initialized. These issues can be detected through code inspections or static analysis tools, which can identify uninitialized variables, missing declarations, and other coding standard violations without the need to execute the code​​.

The testing quadrants, as defined in the context of agile testing, help categorize different types of tests based on their goals and who they serve.

Q1: Technology-facing tests that support the team (e.g., unit tests).

Q2: Business-facing tests that support the team (e.g., automated acceptance tests, BDD, ATDD).

Q3: Business-facing tests that critique the product (e.g., exploratory testing).

Q4: Technology-facing tests that critique the product (e.g., performance and load tests).

Option B correctly places automated acceptance tests from BDD and ATDD in quadrant Q2.

In Agile estimation sessions, particularly during Planning Poker, the goal is to reach a consensus on the effort required for a user story. The process encourages discussion and collaboration among team members to understand the story's requirements and complexities fully. Here’s a breakdown of the options and why D is the correct choice:

Option A: Calculating the arithmetic mean of all estimates.

This method is straightforward but does not facilitate team discussion or consensus-building. It merely averages out the estimates without addressing the reasons behind the varying estimates. Thus, important insights and understanding of the task complexity might be missed.

Option B: Selecting the most frequent estimate value.

While this approach acknowledges the majority’s opinion, it ignores the minority views, which might highlight significant aspects of the story that need consideration. It doesn't ensure that all perspectives are considered and discussed.

Option C: Calculating the mean of the most optimistic and pessimistic estimates.

This approach considers the extremes but again lacks the team discussion and consensus aspect. It also assumes that the extreme values alone can balance out the estimate, which might not always capture the true complexity or simplicity of the task.

Option D: Discussing the most pessimistic and optimistic estimates.

This approach fosters team collaboration and understanding. Memb4 and Memb6 explain their reasoning for the highest and lowest estimates, respectively, which can reveal different perspectives on the task's complexity. This discussion helps the team align their understanding and often leads to a more accurate and agreed-upon estimate in subsequent rounds.

In conclusion, the main goal of Agile estimation techniques like Planning Poker is to encourage team communication and collaboration to ensure that all aspects of the user story are considered. Option D best aligns with this goal by promoting discussion and consensus.

The fact that defects are usually not evenly distributed among the various modules that make up a software application, but rather their distribution tend to reflect the Pareto principle, is expressed by the testing principle referred to as ‘Defects cluster together’. This principle states that a small number of modules contain most of the defects detected, or that a small number of causes are responsible for most of the defects. This principle can be used to guide the test analysis and design activities, by prioritizing the testing of the most critical or risky modules, or by applying more rigorous test techniques to them. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 1.2.1, page 11; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 16.

The problem described involves a software implementation error in a decision statement for calculating a bonus based on the Total Amount of Sales (TAS). The requirement states that if TAS is 300,000€ or more, a bonus should be paid. However, the software incorrectly implements this with "IF (TAS = 300000)" instead of "IF (TAS >= 300000)".

Applying Boundary Value Analysis (BVA) to this situation involves selecting test cases at the boundaries of the input domain, including just below, at, and just above the boundary conditions.

Test Case TC1 = 299999:

This value is just below the boundary (300,000).

Expected Result: No bonus should be paid.

Actual Result: No bonus paid.

TC1 does not highlight the fault because the implemented condition "IF (TAS = 300000)" and the correct condition "IF (TAS >= 300000)" both yield the same result (no bonus).

Test Case TC2 = 300000:

This value is exactly at the boundary.

Expected Result: Bonus should be paid.

Actual Result: Bonus paid.

TC2 does not highlight the fault because the implemented condition "IF (TAS = 300000)" and the correct condition "IF (TAS >= 300000)" both yield the same result (bonus paid).

Test Case TC3 = 300001:

This value is just above the boundary.

Expected Result: Bonus should be paid.

Actual Result: No bonus paid due to the incorrect implementation.

TC3 highlights the fault because the implemented condition "IF (TAS = 300000)" fails to pay the bonus, whereas the correct condition "IF (TAS >= 300000)" would pay the bonus.

BVA focuses on the edges of input ranges where errors are more likely.

The critical values are just below, at, and just above the boundary.

Boundary Value Analysis (BVA):Verification:According to the ISTQB CTFL syllabus, BVA is an essential technique for identifying potential errors at the boundaries of input ranges. This is because developers are more likely to make mistakes at these extremes​​.

Therefore, TC3 (300001) is the test case that would highlight the fault in the software's implementation of the decision condition.

The document that describes the test procedures, including the order in which test cases are to be executed according to dependencies described by preconditions and postconditions, is typically produced during the test implementation phase. During this phase, detailed test procedures and scripts are developed, organized, and prioritized for execution. The main goal of test implementation is to ensure that all test cases are prepared and structured in a way that supports efficient and effective test execution.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 5.1.6, page 49: Test Implementation

 State testing techniques are a type of dynamic testing techniques that are based on the behavior of the system under test for different input conditions and events. Dynamic testing techniques require the system to be executed with test cases, whereas static testing techniques do not. Static testing techniques can be applied before the code is ready for execution, such as reviews, inspections, walkthroughs, and static analysis. Static testing techniques can help find defects early in the development process, improve the quality of the code, and reduce the cost and effort of dynamic testing. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, Page 281; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Page 292

This answer is correct because a walkthrough is a type of review where the author of the work product leads the review process and explains the work product to the reviewers. The reviewers are not required to prepare for the review in advance, and the main objective of the walkthrough is to establish a common understanding of the work product and to identify any major defects or issues. A walkthrough is usually informal and does not follow a defined process or roles. In this case, the review for a high-level architectural document written by a software architect matches the characteristics of a walkthrough. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.4.2.2

The question is about selecting the correct test values for x based on equivalence partitioning. Equivalence partitioning is a software test design technique that divides the input data of a software unit into partitions of equivalent data from which test cases can be derived. In this case, the given equivalence classes are:

(x \leq -100)

(-100 < x < 100)

(100 \leq x < 1000)

(x \geq 1000)

Option D provides a value from each of these partitions:

For (x \leq -100), it gives -1000.

For (-100 < x < 100), it gives -100 and 100.

For (100 \leq x < 1000), it gives 500.

For (x \geq 1000), it gives 1500.

So, option D covers all four given equivalence classes with appropriate values.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 documents available at ISTQB and ASTQB.

1: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 38

2: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 39

: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 40

This answer is correct because test implementation is the activity where test work products, such as test cases, test data, test scripts, test harnesses, test stubs, or virtual services, are created and verified. Test implementation also involves setting up the test environment and preparing the test execution schedule. A virtual service emulating a real third-party service and the automated test scripts that interact with that service are examples of test work products that are typically created during test implementation. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.2.2.3

This answer is correct because Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) is a test-first approach, where tests that express a shared understanding from stakeholders of how the application is expected to work, are first written in business-readable language (following the Given/When/Then format), and then made executable to drive development. BDD is a collaborative approach that involves testers, developers, business analysts, product owners, and other stakeholders in defining the expected behavior of the application using scenarios that describe the preconditions, actions, and outcomes of the application. BDD scenarios are written using a domain-specific language (DSL) that can be translated into executable test cases using tools such as Cucumber or SpecFlow. BDD aims to improve communication, collaboration, and feedback among the team members, and to deliver software that meets the customer’s needs and expectations. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.4

Error guessing is a testing technique where experienced testers anticipate potential defects based on their knowledge of the application and past experiences. Fault attacks, which involve focusing on areas where defects are likely to occur based on previous failures, are a practical implementation of error guessing.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 4.4.1 on error guessing and fault attacks, explaining how testers use their experience to anticipate and target likely defects​​.

This answer is correct because shift-left in testing is an approach that aims to perform testing activities as early as possible in the software development lifecycle, in order to find and fix defects faster and cheaper, and to improve the quality of the software product. Continuous integration is a practice that supports shift-left in testing, as it involves integrating and testing the software components frequently, usually several times a day, using automated tools and processes. Continuous integration can reduce the time between the introduction of a defect and its detection, thereby reducing the cost to fix it and the risk of accumulating defects that could affect the functionality or performance of the software product. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.3, Section 3.2.1.3

This answer is correct because configuration management is a process of establishing and maintaining consistency of a product’s performance, functional, and physical attributes with its requirements, design, and operational information throughout its life. Configuration management helps ensure that all relevant project documentation and software items are uniquely identified in all their versions and therefore can be unambiguously referenced in test documentation. This supports testing by providing traceability, consistency, and control over the test artifacts and the software under test. References: : ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, : ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.2.2.2

Exploratory testing is an experience-based test technique in which testers dynamically design and execute tests based on their knowledge, intuition, and learning of the software system, without following predefined test scripts or test cases. Exploratory testing can be conducted following a session-based approach, which is a structured way of managing and measuring exploratory testing. In a session-based approach, the testers perform uninterrupted test sessions, usually lasting between 60 and 120 minutes, with a specific charter or goal, and document the issues detected, the test coverage achieved, and the time spent in session sheets. Session sheets are records of the test activities, results, and observations during a test session, which can be used for reporting, debriefing, and learning purposes. The other statements are false, because:

Exploratory testing is not a test technique in which testers explore the requirements specification to detect non testable requirements, but rather a test technique in which testers explore the software system to detect functional and non-functional defects, as well as to learn new information, risks, or opportunities. Non testable requirements are requirements that are ambiguous, incomplete, inconsistent, or not verifiable, which can affect the quality and effectiveness of the testing process. Non testable requirements can be detected by applying static testing techniques, such as reviews or inspections, to the requirements specification, before the software system is developed or tested.

Exploratory testing is not a test technique used by testers during informal code reviews to find defects by exploring the source code, but rather a test technique used by testers during dynamic testing to find defects by exploring the behavior and performance of the software system, without examining the source code. Informal code reviews are static testing techniques, in which the source code is analyzed by one or more reviewers, without following a formal process or using a checklist, to identify defects, violations, or improvements. Informal code reviews are usually performed by developers or peers, not by testers.

In exploratory testing, testers usually do not produce scripted tests and establish bidirectional traceability between these tests and the items of the test basis, but rather produce unscripted tests and adapt them based on the feedback and the findings of the testing process. Scripted tests are tests that are designed and documented in advance, with predefined inputs, outputs, and expected results, and are executed according to a test plan or a test procedure. Bidirectional traceability is the ability to trace both forward and backward the relationships between the items of the test basis, such as the requirements, the design, the risks, etc., and the test artifacts, such as the test cases, the test results, the defects, etc. Scripted tests and bidirectional traceability are usually associated with more formal and structured testing approaches, such as specification-based or structure-based test techniques, not with exploratory testing. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.3, Experience-based Test Design Techniques1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Exploratory Testing, Session-based Testing, Session Sheet, Non Testable Requirement, Static Testing, Informal Review, Dynamic Testing, Scripted Testing, Bidirectional Traceability2

This answer is correct because identifying potential anomalies in the work product under review is one of the tasks the Author is responsible for, as part of a typical formal review. The Author is the person who creates the work product to be reviewed, such as a requirement specification, a design document, or a test case. The Author’s tasks include preparing the work product for the review, identifying potential anomalies in the work product, and fixing the anomalies found in the work product after the review. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.4.2.1

Selecting a tester with the required knowledge related to compliance and standards is a correct mitigation option, especially in a highly regulated domain like healthcare. This approach ensures that the tester understands the specific regulatory requirements and standards applicable to the software, thereby reducing the risk of non-compliance. This is more effective than just increasing the number of testers, as it directly addresses the knowledge and expertise needed to mitigate specific product risks​​.

This answer is correct because test implementation is the activity where test work products, such as test cases, test data, test scripts, test harnesses, test stubs, or virtual services, are created and verified. Test implementation also involves setting up the test environment and preparing the test execution schedule. A virtual service emulating a real third-party service and the automated test scripts that interact with that service are examples of test work products that are typically created during test implementation. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.2.2.3

The ISTQB fundamental test process consists of five main phases, as described in the ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 4.0, 2018, Section 2.2, page 15:

Test planning and control: This phase involves defining the test objectives, scope, strategy, resources, schedule, risks, and metrics, as well as monitoring and controlling the test activities and results throughout the test process.

Test analysis and design: This phase involves analyzing the test basis (such as requirements, specifications, or user stories) to identify test conditions (such as features, functions, or scenarios) that need to be tested, and designing test cases and test procedures (such as inputs, expected outcomes, and execution steps) to cover the test conditions. This phase also involves evaluating the testability of the test basis and the test items (such as software or system components), and selecting and implementing test techniques (such as equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, or state transition testing) to achieve the test objectives and optimize the test coverage and efficiency.

Test implementation and execution: This phase involves preparing the test environment (such as hardware, software, data, or tools) and testware (such as test cases, test procedures, test data, or test scripts) for test execution, and executing the test procedures or scripts according to the test plan and schedule. This phase also involves logging the outcome of test execution, comparing the actual results with the expected results, and reporting any discrepancies as incidents (such as defects, errors, or failures).

Evaluating exit criteria and reporting: This phase involves checking if the planned test activities have been completed and the exit criteria (such as quality, coverage, or risk levels) have been met, and reporting the test results and outcomes to the stakeholders. This phase also involves making recommendations for the release or acceptance decision based on the test results and outcomes, and identifying any residual risks (such as known defects or untested areas) that need to be addressed or mitigated.

Test closure activities: This phase involves finalizing and archiving the testware and test environment for future reuse, and evaluating the test process and the test project against the test objectives and the test plan. This phase also involves identifying any lessons learned and best practices, and communicating the findings and suggestions for improvement to the relevant parties.

References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 4.0, 2018, Section 2.2, page 15; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, pages 37-38; ISTQB CTFL 4.0 - Sample Exam - Answers, Version 1.1, 2023, Question 88, page 32.

The statement that the shift-left approach can only be implemented with test automation is false. The shift-left approach emphasizes early testing activities in the software development lifecycle to detect and address defects as soon as possible. While test automation can support shift-left practices, it is not the only method. The shift-left approach can also involve practices such as static analysis, early requirement reviews, and integrating security vulnerability assessments early in the development process.

DevOps practices emphasize the importance of testing non-functional characteristics such as performance, security, and reliability. This focus ensures that the system not only meets functional requirements but also performs well under various conditions and is secure. DevOps promotes a continuous testing approach, which includes both functional and non-functional testing integrated into the development and deployment pipelines.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 2.1.4 on DevOps and testing, which highlights the role of DevOps in emphasizing non-functional characteristics​​.

A mature software testing company, especially one certified at TMMi level 5, is expected to have well-defined and adaptable processes. These companies recognize that test design techniques should be chosen based on the specific context of the project, including the domain and stakeholder expectations, rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. This ensures that the testing is effective and aligned with project requirements.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.1 on test design techniques and their selection based on context​​.

Dynamic testing requires the execution of the software to evaluate its behavior and performance. In contrast, static testing involves examining the software's code, design, and documentation without executing the software. This makes static testing applicable to non-executable work products such as requirement documents, design documents, and source code.

Cost can be regarded as an exit criterion for testing, because it is a factor that affects the profitability and feasibility of the software product. Testing is an investment that aims to improve the quality and reliability of the software product, but it also consumes resources, such as time, money, and human effort. Therefore, testing should be planned and executed in a way that balances the cost and benefit of testing activities. Having cost as an exit criterion helps to avoid spending too much money on testing, which may result in an unprofitable product or a loss of competitive advantage. Cost can also help to prioritize and focus the testing efforts on the most critical and valuable features and functions of the software product. However, cost should not be the only exit criterion for testing, as it may not reflect the true quality and risk level of the software product. Other exit criteria, such as defect rate, test coverage, user satisfaction, etc., should also be considered and defined in the test plan.

The other options are incorrect, because they either deny the importance of cost as an exit criterion, or they make false or unrealistic assumptions about the cost of testing. Option B is incorrect, because the financial value of product quality can be estimated, for example, by using cost-benefit analysis, return on investment, or cost of quality models. Option C is incorrect, because going by cost as an exit criterion does not necessarily constrain the testing project or help achieve the desired quality level. Cost is a relative and variable factor that depends on the scope, complexity, and context of the software product and the testing project. Option D is incorrect, because the cost of testing can be measured effectively, for example, by using metrics, such as test effort, test resources, test tools, test environment, etc.

In the V-model project described in the question, the tester can identify the following based on the provided information:

Expected result (II): The requirements specification clearly states that the app should only ask for access permissions to the camera and photos stored on the device during and after installation. This expected behavior is defined by the requirements.

Actual result (III): The tester observes that the app also requests access to all contacts on the device, which deviates from the expected result. This actual observation can be recorded accurately.

Given these details, the tester can specify the expected result (II) and the actual result (III) in the defect report. However, without more information, the tester cannot determine the test environment (I), the test level (IV), or the root cause (V).

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.5 on Defect Reporting

Typical contents of a defect report as mentioned in the syllabus include the expected result and the actual result observed during testing​​.

The test leader is the person who is responsible for planning, monitoring, and controlling the test activities and resources in a test project. The test leader should have the best knowledge of the test objectives, scope, risks, resources, schedule, and quality criteria. The test leader should also be aware of the test automation criteria, such as the execution frequency, the test support, the team education, the roles and responsibilities, and the devs and testers collaboration1. Based on these factors, the test leader can decide which tests are suitable for automation and which are not, and prioritize them accordingly. The test leader can also coordinate with the test automation engineers, the developers, and the stakeholders to ensure the alignment of the test automation strategy with the test project goals and expectations. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Page 152; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Page 403; ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Chapter 6, Section 6.1.1, Page 514; Top 8 Test Automation Criteria You Need To Fulfill - QAMIND1

The features of the test object to be tested and those excluded from the testing represent information that is usually included in a test plan and, in the given test plan, it is more likely to be specified within “Test Scope” rather than in the other two sections mentioned. The test scope defines the boundaries and limitations of the testing activities, such as the test items, the features to be tested, the features not to be tested, the test objectives, the test environment, the test resources, the test assumptions, the test risks, etc. The test scope helps to establish a common understanding of what is included and excluded from the testing, and to avoid ambiguity, confusion, or misunderstanding among the stakeholders. The other two sections, “Testing Communication” and “Stakeholders”, are also important parts of a test plan, but they do not directly address the features of the test object. The testing communication describes the methods, frequency, and responsibilities for the communication and reporting of the testing progress, status, issues, and results. The stakeholders identify the roles and responsibilities of the people involved in or affected by the testing activities, such as the test manager, the test team, the project manager, the developers, the customers, the users, etc. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.1, Test Planning1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test Plan, Test Scope2

A new navigation system compared with a previous system is the most suitable application for testing by use cases, because it involves a high level of interaction between the user and the system, and the expected behavior and outcomes of the system are based on the user’s needs and goals. Use cases can help to specify the functional requirements of the new navigation system, such as the ability to enter a destination, select a route, follow the directions, receive alerts, etc. Use cases can also help to compare the accuracy and usability of the new system with the previous system, by defining the success and failure scenarios, the preconditions and postconditions, and the alternative flows of each use case. Use cases can also help to design and execute test cases that cover the main and exceptional paths of each use case, and to verify the satisfaction of the user’s expectations.

The other options are not the most suitable applications for testing by use cases, because they do not involve a high level of interaction between the user and the system, or the expected behavior and outcomes of the system are not based on the user’s needs and goals. A billing system used to calculate monthly charge based on a large number of subscriber parameters is more suitable for testing by data-driven testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and performance of a system or component by using a large set of input and output data. The ability of an antivirus package to detect and quarantine a new threat is more suitable for testing by exploratory testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and security of a system or component by using an informal and flexible approach, based on the tester’s experience and intuition. The suitability and performance of a multimedia (audio video based) system to a new operating system is more suitable for testing by compatibility testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and performance of a system or component by using different hardware, software, or network environments. References = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 3.1.1, page 28-29; Section 4.1.1, page 44-45; Section 4.2.1, page 47-48.

Test exit criteria are the conditions that must be fulfilled before concluding a particular testing phase. These criteria act as a checkpoint to assess whether we have achieved the testing objectives and are done with testing1. Test exit criteria are typically defined in the test plan document, which is one of the outputs of the test planning phase. The test plan document describes the scope, approach, resources, and schedule of the testing activities. It also identifies the test items, the features to be tested, the testing tasks, the risks, and the test deliverables2. According to the ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, the test plan document should include the following information related to the test exit criteria3:

The criteria for evaluating test completion, such as the percentage of test cases executed, the percentage of test coverage achieved, the number and severity of defects found and fixed, the quality and reliability of the software product, and the stakeholder satisfaction.

The criteria for evaluating test process improvement, such as the adherence to the test strategy, the efficiency and effectiveness of the testing activities, the lessons learned and best practices identified, and the recommendations for future improvements.

Therefore, the test plan document is the most appropriate test document to find the test exit criteria described. The other options, such as test design specification, project plan, and requirements specification, are not directly related to the test exit criteria. The test design specification describes the test cases and test procedures for a specific test level or test type3. The project plan describes the overall objectives, scope, assumptions, risks, and deliverables of the software project4. The requirements specification describes the functional and non-functional requirements of the software product5. None of these documents specify the conditions for ending the testing process or evaluating the testing outcomes. References = ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Entry and Exit Criteria in Software Testing | Baeldung on Computer Science, Entry And Exit Criteria In Software Testing - Rishabh Software, Entry and Exit Criteria in Software Testing Life Cycle - STLC [2022 Updated] - Testsigma Blog, ISTQB® releases Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0 (CTFL).

Sequential models, such as the Waterfall model, typically involve completing the requirements review before moving on to test analysis, as well as producing extensive product documentation (i and iv). Iterative and incremental models, like Agile and Spiral models, often involve both static and dynamic testing at the unit testing level, frequent regression testing due to continuous integration and changes, and more use of exploratory testing (ii, iii, and v).

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 2.1 on software development lifecycle models and their impact on testing, which discusses the characteristics and testing practices of different lifecycle models​​.

Exploratory testing is an experience-based test technique in which testers dynamically design and execute tests based on their knowledge, intuition, and learning of the software system, without following predefined test scripts or test cases. Exploratory testing can be conducted following a session-based approach, which is a structured way of managing and measuring exploratory testing. In a session-based approach, the testers perform uninterrupted test sessions, usually lasting between 60 and 120 minutes, with a specific charter or goal, and document the issues detected, the test coverage achieved, and the time spent in session sheets. Session sheets are records of the test activities, results, and observations during a test session, which can be used for reporting, debriefing, and learning purposes. The other statements are false, because:

Exploratory testing is not a test technique in which testers explore the requirements specification to detect non testable requirements, but rather a test technique in which testers explore the software system to detect functional and non-functional defects, as well as to learn new information, risks, or opportunities. Non testable requirements are requirements that are ambiguous, incomplete, inconsistent, or not verifiable, which can affect the quality and effectiveness of the testing process. Non testable requirements can be detected by applying static testing techniques, such as reviews or inspections, to the requirements specification, before the software system is developed or tested.

Exploratory testing is not a test technique used by testers during informal code reviews to find defects by exploring the source code, but rather a test technique used by testers during dynamic testing to find defects by exploring the behavior and performance of the software system, without examining the source code. Informal code reviews are static testing techniques, in which the source code is analyzed by one or more reviewers, without following a formal process or using a checklist, to identify defects, violations, or improvements. Informal code reviews are usually performed by developers or peers, not by testers.

In exploratory testing, testers usually do not produce scripted tests and establish bidirectional traceability between these tests and the items of the test basis, but rather produce unscripted tests and adapt them based on the feedback and the findings of the testing process. Scripted tests are tests that are designed and documented in advance, with predefined inputs, outputs, and expected results, and are executed according to a test plan or a test procedure. Bidirectional traceability is the ability to trace both forward and backward the relationships between the items of the test basis, such as the requirements, the design, the risks, etc., and the test artifacts, such as the test cases, the test results, the defects, etc. Scripted tests and bidirectional traceability are usually associated with more formal and structured testing approaches, such as specification-based or structure-based test techniques, not with exploratory testing. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.3, Experience-based Test Design Techniques1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Exploratory Testing, Session-based Testing, Session Sheet, Non Testable Requirement, Static Testing, Informal Review, Dynamic Testing, Scripted Testing, Bidirectional Traceability2

In branch testing, a conditional branch represents a decision point in the software program where the flow of execution can take different paths based on specific conditions. For example, this could be an "if-else" statement, a "switch-case" statement, or loops where different execution paths are taken depending on the evaluated condition. This type of testing ensures that all possible paths and conditions are executed at least once, which helps in identifying any potential defects in different branches of the code​​.

Exploratory testing is an experience-based testing technique where test design and test execution occur simultaneously. It is characterized by the tester actively exploring the application, using their intuition and experience to uncover defects. Exploratory testing sessions are often guided by test charters, which are brief documents outlining the test objectives, scope, and areas to be explored during the session.

These test charters provide a flexible framework that directs the tester's exploration without being overly prescriptive, allowing testers to adapt and investigate new areas as they uncover issues. This approach is particularly useful in dynamic and complex systems where predefined test cases might not cover all scenarios.

References:

The official ISTQB® CTFL syllabus explains the structure and benefits of exploratory testing, highlighting how test charters guide the testing process while allowing for flexibility and adaptability in identifying defects​​.

White-box testing, also known as structural testing, involves testing the internal structures or workings of an application, as opposed to its functionality (which is tested by black-box testing). The correct statement about white-box testing is that it helps find defects by measuring aspects such as statement coverage.

Statement Coverage: White-box testing techniques like statement coverage measure whether each statement in the code has been executed at least once. This helps ensure that all parts of the code are tested and can reveal defects in areas that might not be reached by black-box testing alone​​.

Other statements are less accurate in the context of white-box testing:

Specifications being vague: White-box testing is code-focused, not requirement-focused. If specifications are vague, it affects both white-box and black-box testing. The main advantage of white-box testing is that it allows testers to create tests based on the code's structure and logic​​.

Requirements-based coverage: This is typically associated with black-box testing, which derives tests from specifications and requirements. White-box testing, on the other hand, derives tests from the code itself​​.

Focus on defects rather than failures: Both white-box and black-box testing aim to identify defects, but white-box testing does this through code coverage and examining the code paths directly. It does not focus exclusively on defects rather than failures; it is just another method to identify potential issues​​.

The tests at the bottom layer of the test pyramid run faster than the tests at the top layer of the pyramid because they are more focused, isolated, and atomic. They usually test individual units or components of the software system, such as classes, methods, or functions. They are also easier to maintain and execute, as they have fewer dependencies and interactions with other parts of the system. The tests at the top layer of the test pyramid, on the other hand, are slower because they cover larger pieces of functionalities, such as user interfaces, workflows, or end-to-end scenarios. They also have more dependencies and interactions with other systems, such as databases, networks, or external services. They are more complex and costly to maintain and execute, as they require more setup and teardown procedures, test data, and test environments. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.2.1, Test Pyramid1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test Pyramid2

The statement that refers to good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model is option D, which says that involvement of testers in work product reviews should occur as early as possible to take advantage of the early testing principle. Work product reviews are static testing techniques, in which the work products of the software development process, such as the requirements, the design, the code, the test cases, etc., are examined by one or more reviewers, with or without the author, to identify defects, violations, or improvements. Involvement of testers in work product reviews can provide various benefits for the testing process, such as improving the test quality, the test efficiency, and the test communication. The early testing principle states that testing activities should start as early as possible in the software development lifecycle, and should be performed iteratively and continuously throughout the lifecycle. Applying the early testing principle can help to prevent, detect, and remove defects at an early stage, when they are easier, cheaper, and faster to fix, as well as to reduce the risk, the cost, and the time of the testing process. The other options are not good testing practices to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, but rather specific testing practices that may or may not be applicable or beneficial for testing, depending on the context and the objectives of the testing activities, such as:

Tests should be written in executable format before the code is written and should act as executable specifications that drive coding: This is a specific testing practice that is associated with test-driven development, which is an approach to software development and testing, in which the developers write automated unit tests before writing the source code, and then refactor the code until the tests pass. Test-driven development can help to improve the quality, the design, and the maintainability of the code, as well as to provide fast feedback and guidance for the developers. However, test-driven development is not a good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, as it may not be feasible, suitable, or effective for testing in some contexts or situations, such as when the requirements are unclear, unstable, or complex, when the test automation tools or skills are not available or adequate, when the testing objectives or levels are not aligned with the unit testing, etc.

Test levels should be defined such that the exit criteria of one level are part of the entry criteria for the next level: This is a specific testing practice that is associated with sequential software development models, such as the waterfall model, the V-model, or the W-model, in which the software development and testing activities are performed in a linear and sequential order, with well-defined phases, deliverables, and dependencies. Test levels are the stages of testing that correspond to the levels of integration of the software system, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing. Test levels should have clear and measurable entry criteria and exit criteria, which are the conditions that must be met before starting or finishing a test level. In sequential software development models, the exit criteria of one test level are usually part of the entry criteria for the next test level, to ensure that the software system is ready and stable for the next level of testing. However, this is not a good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, as it may not be relevant, flexible, or efficient for testing in some contexts or situations, such as when the software development and testing activities are performed in an iterative and incremental order, with frequent changes, feedback, and adaptations, as in agile software development models, such as Scrum, Kanban, or XP, when the test levels are not clearly defined or distinguished, or when the test levels are performed in parallel or concurrently, etc.

Test objectives should be the same for all test levels, although the number of tests designed at various levels can vary significantly: This is a specific testing practice that is associated with uniform software development models, such as the spiral model, the incremental model, or the prototyping model, in which the software development and testing activities are performed in a cyclical and repetitive manner, with similar phases, deliverables, and processes. Test objectives are the goals or the purposes of testing, which can vary depending on the test level, the test type, the test technique, the test environment, the test stakeholder, etc. Test objectives can be defined in terms of the test basis, the test coverage, the test quality, the test risk, the test cost, the test time, etc. Test objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, and they should be aligned with the project objectives and the quality characteristics. In uniform software development models, the test objectives may be the same for all test levels, as the testing process is repeated for each cycle or iteration, with similar focus, scope, and perspective of testing. However, this is not a good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, as it may not be appropriate, realistic, or effective for testing in some contexts or situations, such as when the software development and testing activities are performed in a hierarchical and modular manner, with different phases, deliverables, and dependencies, as in sequential software development models, such as the waterfall model, the V-model, or the W-model, when the test objectives vary according to the test levels, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing, or when the test objectives change according to the feedback, the learning, or the adaptation of the testing process, as in agile software development models, such as Scrum, Kanban, or XP, etc. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.1.1, Testing and the Software Development Lifecycle1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.2.1, Testing Principles1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.2.2, Testing Policies, Strategies, and Test Approaches1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.3.1, Testing in Software Development Lifecycles1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.1, Test Planning1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.2, Test Monitoring and Control1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.3, Test Analysis and Design1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.4, Test Implementation1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.5, Test Execution1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.6, Test Closure1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Work Product Review, Static Testing, Early Testing, Test-driven Development, Test Level, Entry Criterion, Exit Criterion, Test Objective, Test Basis, Test Coverage, Test Quality, Test Risk, Test Cost, Test Time2

To determine the number of partitions using one-dimensional equivalence partitioning, we need to consider each aspect of the ID requirement individually.

Length of the ID:

Valid partitions: 5 to 10 characters (1 partition)

Invalid partitions: Less than 5 characters, more than 10 characters (2 partitions)

Type of characters:

Valid partitions: Alphanumeric characters (1 partition)

Invalid partitions: Non-alphanumeric characters (1 partition)

Type of first character:

Valid partitions: First character is a letter (1 partition)

Invalid partitions: First character is not a letter (1 partition)

Adding these together, we have a total of 1 (valid length) + 2 (invalid lengths) + 1 (valid type) + 1 (invalid type) + 1 (valid first character) + 1 (invalid first character) = 7 partitions.

This answer is correct because Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) is a test-first approach, where tests that express a shared understanding from stakeholders of how the application is expected to work, are first written in business-readable language (following the Given/When/Then format), and then made executable to drive development. BDD is a collaborative approach that involves testers, developers, business analysts, product owners, and other stakeholders in defining the expected behavior of the application using scenarios that describe the preconditions, actions, and outcomes of the application. BDD scenarios are written using a domain-specific language (DSL) that can be translated into executable test cases using tools such as Cucumber or SpecFlow. BDD aims to improve communication, collaboration, and feedback among the team members, and to deliver software that meets the customer’s needs and expectations. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.4

Maintenance testing is performed to ensure that the application continues to function correctly after changes have been made. These changes can include modifications due to new regulations, bug fixes, enhancements, or any other updates. In this case, the change in the protocol for connecting to the payment gateway due to new regulations falls under maintenance testing, as it involves testing the application to ensure it works correctly after the implementation of the required changes​​.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form