ISTQB ISTQB-CTFL Dumps

Use case testing is a technique that helps identify test cases that exercise the whole system on a transaction by transaction basis from start to finish. Use cases are descriptions of how users interact with the system to achieve a specific goal. Use case testing is not focused on data flow, but rather on process flow. Use case testing can be performed by professional testers, customers or end users, depending on the context. Use case testing does not require the test cases to be designed by customers or end users, but rather by anyone who has access to the use case specifications. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 4, page 36.

This scenario is using a walkthrough review type and a perspective-based review technique. In a walkthrough, the author of the document leads the meeting and it typically includes a meeting leader and a scribe, as described. This type of review is informal, focuses on discussion, and often involves scenario-based reading of the document to understand different user perspectives​ (ISTQB Main Web)​.References:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 PDF

Static analysis tools are software tools that examine the source code of a program without executing it. They can detect various types of issues, such as syntax errors, coding standards violations, security vulnerabilities, and potential bugs12. However, static analysis tools cannot identify issues that depend on the runtime behavior or performance of the program, such as very low MTBF (Mean Time Between failure)3. MTBF is a measure of the reliability of a system or component. It is calculated by dividing the total operating time by the number of failures. MTBF reflects how often a system or component fails during its expected lifetime. Static analysis tools cannot measure MTBF because they do not run the program or observe its failures. MTBF can only be estimated by dynamic testing, which involves executing the program under various conditions and collecting data on its failures4. Therefore, very low MTBF is an issue that cannot be identified by static analysis tools. The other options, such as potentially endless loops, referencing a variable with an undefined value, and security vulnerabilities, are issues that can be identified by static analysis tools. Static analysis tools can detect potentially endless loops by analyzing the control flow and data flow of the program and checking for conditions that may never become false5. Static analysis tools can detect referencing a variable with an undefined value by checking the scope and initialization of variables and reporting any use of uninitialized variables6. Static analysis tools can detect security vulnerabilities by checking for common patterns of insecure code, such as buffer overflows, SQL injections, cross-site scripting, and weak encryption. References = What Is Static Analysis? Static Code Analysis Tools - Perforce Software, How Static Code Analysis Works | Perforce, Static Code Analysis: Techniques, Top 5 Benefits & 3 Challenges, What is MTBF? Mean Time Between Failures Explained | Perforce, Static analysis tools - Software Testing MCQs - CareerRide, ISTQB_Chapter3 | Quizizz, [Static Code Analysis for Security Vulnerabilities | Perforce].

Regression testing is a type of testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after changes. Regression testing can help prevent re-opening of defects fixed earlier by ensuring that they do not cause any new failures or side effects. The first recommendation to the company is to verify existing regression test suite are adequate, and augment it, if required, in order to ensure that defects fixed earlier get re-tested in each subsequent build. This can help improve the coverage and effectiveness of regression testing and detect any regression defects as soon as possible. Automating existing test suites may also help reduce the time and effort required for regression testing, but this is not the first recommendation, as automation may not be feasible or cost-effective for all test cases. Analyzing the product modules containing maximum defects and getting them thoroughly tested and defects fixed as a one-time activity may also help reduce the defect density and improve the quality of those modules, but this is not the first recommendation, as it does not address the root cause of re-opening defects fixed earlier. Training or replacing the teams responsible for development and testing of the modules containing maximum number of defects may also help improve their skills or performance, but this is not the first recommendation, as it may not be necessary or appropriate for all teams. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 2, page 19; Chapter 4, page 45.

Test Management tools are designed to support the planning, execution, and monitoring of the testing process. They provide features for managing test cases, test runs, tracking defects, and reporting on testing activities. However, the statement in option C describes Test Management tools as monitoring and reporting on the system's behavior during testing activities, which is not accurate. Test Management tools focus on the testing process itself rather than on the behavior of the system under test.

Test data preparation tools (A) indeed create and manage test data for use during test execution.

Test execution tools (B) automate the execution of test cases and the comparison of actual outcomes against expected results.

Test comparators (D) are tools that compare actual outcomes with expected outcomes, highlighting discrepancies.

Therefore, option C is the correct answer as it inaccurately describes the function of Test Management tools.

To determine the optimal test execution schedule that minimizes the number of configuration switches and respects the dependencies, we start with the initial configuration, CONF1.

TC4: It has no dependencies and runs on CONF1 (initial configuration).

TC3: Depends on TC4 and runs on CONF1. Since TC4 is already executed, we can proceed with TC3.

TC2: Depends on TC4 and runs on CONF2. We switch to CONF2 after TC3.

TC1: No dependencies and runs on CONF2. Since we are already in CONF2, we can execute TC1 next.

TC5: Depends on TC1 and runs on CONF2. Since TC1 is already executed, we can proceed with TC5 without additional configuration switches.

By following this sequence (TC4, TC3, TC2, TC1, TC5), we respect the dependencies and minimize the number of configuration switches

 A test oracle is a mechanism or principle that can be used to determine whether the observed behavior or output of a system under test is correct or not1. A test oracle can be based on various sources of expected results, such as specifications, user expectations, previous versions, comparable systems, etc2. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Section 1.2.1, Page 91; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, Page 332.

Static analysis is the process of examining the work products of a software development or testing activity without executing them. Static analysis can be applied to various types of work products, such as requirements, design, code, test cases, etc. However, test plans are not suitable for static analysis, because they are high-level documents that describe the test objectives, scope, strategy, resources, schedule, and risks of a testing project. Test plans are not executable or formalized in a way that static analysis tools can analyze them. Therefore, option A is the correct answer.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 2.2.1, page 20; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 45.

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.

The following statements about reviews are true:

I) In walkthroughs the review meeting is typically led by the author. A walkthrough is a type of review that has a predefined objective and agenda but no formal process or roles. A walkthrough is typically led by the author of the work product under review, who guides the participants through a scenario and solicits feedback.

IV) Management rarely participates in technical review meetings. A technical review is a type of review that has a predefined objective and agenda but no formal process or roles. A technical review is typically performed by peers with technical expertise in order to evaluate technical aspects of a work product. Management rarely participates in technical review meetings, as they may not have sufficient technical knowledge or skills to contribute effectively. The following statements about reviews are false:

II) Inspection is characterized by an open-ended review meeting. An inspection is a type of review that follows a defined process with formal entry and exit criteria and roles and responsibilities for participants. An inspection is characterized by a structured review meeting with a fixed duration and agenda.

III) Preparation before the review meeting is part of informal reviews. Preparation before the review meeting is part of formal reviews, such as inspections or technical reviews. Preparation involves checking

An incident report during testing should focus on factual observations of failures or defects in the system, including their impacts and how they deviate from expected results. Options A, C, and D describe specific issues that are directly related to the system's behavior or performance and are suitable for inclusion in an incident report. Option B, which describes the user interface as "complicated and confusing" and relates to the tester's personal difficulty in following the test script, is more subjective and relates to the tester's experience rather than an objective observation of a system failure. Therefore, option B is the least appropriate for an incident report​​.

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

Risk level is determined by the combination of two factors: the likelihood of an event occurring and the impact or harm that could result from that event. This approach allows risks to be prioritized based on their potential effect on the project or system. The likelihood represents the probability of the risk event occurring, while the impact represents the severity of the consequences if the event does happen. This concept is fundamental in risk-based testing and helps guide decision-making during the testing process.References:

ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 1.4.1.

This answer is correct because code-related white-box test techniques are test design techniques that use the structure of the code to derive test cases. They provide an objective measure of coverage, such as statement coverage, branch coverage, or path coverage, which indicate how much of the code has been exercised by the test cases. Code-related white-box test techniques can be used to complement black-box test techniques, which are test design techniques that use the functional or non-functional requirements of the system or component to derive test cases. By combining both types of techniques, testers can increase their confidence in the code and find more defects. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.2

An incident is any event that occurs during testing that requires investigation. An incident management tool is a software tool that supports recording and tracking incidents throughout their life cycle. A QA manager of a start-up company needs to implement within a week a low cost incident management tool. The best option for this case is to manage the incidents in a spreadsheet posted on the intranet. This option has several advantages over other options:

It is low cost, as it does not require purchasing any additional software or hardware.

It is easy to implement within a week, as it does not require installing or configuring any complex software or hardware.

It is accessible and transparent, as it can be viewed and updated by anyone who has access to the intranet.

It is structured and organized, as it can store and display various information about incidents, such as identifier, summary, description, severity, priority, status, resolution, etc. The other options are not suitable for this case, as they have several disadvantages over the chosen option:

Documenting incidents on a large board in the lab is not a good option, as it is not accessible or transparent to anyone who is not physically present in the lab. It is also not structured or organized, as it may not store or display all the necessary information about incidents.

Purchasing and deploying an incident management tool is not a good option, as it is not low cost or easy to implement within a week. It may require spending a significant amount of money and time on acquiring, installing and configuring the software or hardware.

Managing the incidents through emails and phone calls is not a good option, as it is not structured or organized. It may lead to confusion, inconsistency or loss of information about incidents. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 3, page 32-33.

Selecting the right test technique is crucial because different techniques are suited to different types of testing and can significantly increase the effectiveness of the testing process by creating tests that are more likely to find defects. While reducing the number of tests (A) and defining the number of regression cycles (D) are considerations in the testing process, they are not the primary reasons for selecting a test technique. The assertion that the only way to test a software application is by using well-proven test techniques (B) is too restrictive and does not acknowledge the adaptability required in testing to suit different contexts and objectives. Therefore, option C is the most comprehensive reason, as it focuses on the effectiveness and efficiency of testing, leading to the creation of high-quality tests that have a higher chance of finding bugs.

The correct matching of the topics with their descriptions is as follows:

Functional behaviour: The externally observable behaviour with user actions as input operating under certain configurations (A to C).

Quality characteristics: How the system performs the specific behaviour (B to A).

Scenarios: A sequence of actions between an external actor and the system, to accomplish a specific goal or business task (C to B).

Business rules: Activities that can only be performed in the system under certain conditions defined by outside procedures and constraints (D to E).

External interfaces: Description of the connections between the system to be developed and the outside world (E to D)​​.

State transition testing is a black-box testing technique used to analyze the behavior of a system by examining the transitions between different states in response to events. In state transition testing, a state table or diagram is used to represent the states of a system and the transitions between these states triggered by events.

Option D is correct because in state transition testing, all transitions between states should be explicitly shown in the state table. This includes valid transitions that the system is expected to make under normal operation and, where relevant, invalid transitions that should be tested to ensure the system handles unexpected or erroneous inputs gracefully. The state table provides a comprehensive view of how the system should behave, making it possible to create tests that cover all defined transitions.

Statements II, III and V are true about test reports. Test reports are documents that provide information on the results and status of testing activities for a given period or phase. Test reports should give stakeholders information as basis for decisions, such as whether to release the software product, whether to continue testing, whether to change the scope or priorities of testing, etc. Test reports should summarize what happened through a period of testing, such as what test cases were executed, what defects were found, what risks were identified, what issues were encountered, what achievements were made, etc. Test reports should include information about remaining risks, such as what defects are still open, what test cases are still pending, what functionalities are still untested, what uncertainties are still unresolved, etc. Statements I and IV are not true about test reports. Test reports do not need to be approved by the test team, the development team, or the customer, unless it is specified by the test policy or the test plan. Test reports only need to be reviewed and verified by the test leader or the test manager before being distributed to the intended recipients. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 141.

The testing of software does not demonstrate the absence of defects, but rather the presence of defects or the conformance of the software to the specified requirements1. Testing can never prove that the software is defect-free, as it is impossible to test all possible scenarios, inputs, outputs, and behaviors of the software2. Testing can only provide a level of confidence in the quality of the software, based on the coverage, effectiveness, and efficiency of the testing activities3.

The other options are correct because:

A. Properly designed tests that pass reduce the level of risk in a system, as they verify that the system meets the expected quality attributes and satisfies the needs and expectations of the users and clients4. Risk is the potential for loss or harm due to the occurrence of an undesirable event5. Testing can help to identify, analyze, prioritize, and mitigate the risks associated with the software product and project6.

C. Software testing identifies defects, which can be used to improve development activities, as they provide feedback on the quality of the software and the effectiveness of the development processes7. Defects are flaws or errors in the software that cause it to deviate from the expected or required results or behavior. Testing can help to detect, report, track, and resolve the defects, and prevent them from recurring in the future.

D. Performing a review of the requirement specifications before implementing the system can enhance quality, as it can ensure that the requirements are clear, complete, consistent, testable, and aligned with the needs and expectations of the users and clients. Requirements are the specifications of what the software should do and how it should do it. Testing can help to validate that the requirements are met by the software, and verify that the software is implemented according to the requirements.

References =

1 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 10

2 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 11

3 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 12

4 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 13

5 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 97

6 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 98

7 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 14

[8] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 15

[9] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 16

[10] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 17

[11] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 18

[12] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 19

Test automation allows you to produce tests that are less subject to human errors, as they can execute predefined test scripts or test cases with consistent inputs, outputs, and expected results. Test automation can also reduce the manual effort and time required to execute repetitive or tedious tests, such as regression tests, performance tests, or data-driven tests. Test automation does not demonstrate the absence of defects, as it can only verify the expected behavior of the system under test, not the unexpected or unknown behavior. Test automation does not avoid performing exploratory testing, as exploratory testing is a valuable technique to discover new information, risks, or defects that are not covered by automated tests. Test automation does not increase test process efficiency by facilitating management of defects, as defect management is a separate activity that involves reporting, tracking, analyzing, and resolving defects, which may or may not be related to automated tests. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.3.1, Test Automation1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test Automation2

Confirmation testing, also known as retesting, is conducted to verify that specific defects have been fixed. Regression testing, on the other hand, is performed to ensure that recent changes have not adversely affected existing features of the software. Both types of testing are crucial for maintaining the integrity and quality of the software after modifications​​.

Traceability primarily refers to the ability to link test cases back to their sources in the test basis, such as requirements or design documents. This linkage allows for the determination of coverage, impact analysis, and maintaining consistency across test documentation. However, traceability does not directly enable the application of experience-based test techniques, which are more about using the tester's intuition and experience. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 does not state that traceability enables experience-based techniques, making option B the false statement​​.

Static analysis is a technique that analyzes the source code or other software artifacts without executing them. Static analysis can detect defects such as syntax errors, coding standards violations, potential security vulnerabilities, or logical flaws. Static analysis can catch the bug in the first implementation, as it contains two syntax errors: the variable y is declared twice, and the assignment statement X = y=z is invalid. Static analysis cannot catch the bugs in the other three implementations, as they are logical errors that do not violate any syntax rules, but produce incorrect results. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 3, page 25-26.

A correct list of boundary values for the P input should include the minimum and maximum values of the valid range (15 and 350), as well as the values just below and above the boundaries (14 and 351). Boundary value analysis is a test design technique that involves testing the values at or near the boundaries of an input domain or output range, as these values are more likely to cause errors than values in the middle. Option B satisfies this condition, as it has all four boundary values (14, 15, 350, 351). Option A has only two boundary values (14 and 351), option C has only two boundary values (15 and 350), and option D has no boundary values at all. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 34.

Testers are typically involved in creating detailed test execution schedules, among other tasks such as designing tests, executing tests, and logging defects. Creating a test strategy and test policy, promoting and advocating the test team, and introducing metrics are typically responsibilities of test managers or senior roles.

In the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, the responsibilities of testers include creating test cases, setting up test​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​nts, executing tests, and reporting defects, which align with creating detailed test execution schedules【6†source】.

References:

Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0

ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 4.0 (2023)

Static testing, such as code reviews and static analysis, is particularly effective at identifying issues related to code structure and modularization. These techniques allow for the inspection of the code without executing it, making it easier to spot problems related to how the code is organized. Dynamic testing, on the other hand, focuses on the execution of code and is better suited for identifying runtime issues but does not easily reveal structural problems. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 highlights the strengths of static testing in uncovering such structural issue

The statement "Traceability may make it harder to understand the impact of changes" is incorrect. Traceability in testing actually facilitates understanding the impact of changes by linking test cases to requirements. This linkage helps ensure that any changes in the requirements are adequately reflected and verified in the test cases, thus supporting effective management of changes and maintaining the integrity of the system or product being developed​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​​ (ISTQB Main Web)​.References:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0:

ISTQB Official Website - CTFL Certification:

Product risk involves the potential issues that can affect the quality and functionality of the software product, such as defects, performance problems, and usability issues. Project risk, on the other hand, relates to the risks that can impact the project's schedule, budget, and resources, such as delays, cost overruns, and resource constraints. Understanding both types of risks is crucial for managing and mitigating potential problems in software projects.

References: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 5.2.1, "Risk Management in Testing."

In Agile development, an informal review, often referred to as a "buddy check," is a common review type. Informal reviews are unstructured and involve a pair of colleagues reviewing each other’s work to identify defects early and provide immediate feedback. This type of review is less formal than inspections or walkthroughs and is particularly suitable for Agile environments where rapid feedback and flexibility are essential.

References: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 3.2.4, "Types of Reviews" and Section 2.1.4, "Agile Testing Practices."

This answer is correct because equivalence partitioning is a test design technique that divides the input domain of a system or component into partitions of equivalent data, such that each partition is expected to produce the same output or behavior. Equivalence partitioning aims to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. In this case, the input domain of the TAS can be divided into four partitions based on the bonus rules: less than 50k€, between 50k€ and 80k€, between 80k€ and 120k€, and more than 120k€. The test cases in the answer belong to the same partition, which is between 80k€ and 120k€, and they are expected to produce the same output, which is a bonus of 15%. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.1

In Agile teams, close collaboration among testers and other team members can lead to organizational risks such as: ii. Close interaction with developers causes a loss of the appropriate tester mindset. iv. Testers, once they have acquired technical development or business skills, leave the testing team.

These risks highlight the potential issues of diminished testing perspective and team turnover when testers integrate closely with developers and other roles​​.

One possible risk of introducing test automation is that the selected tool may not be fit-for-purpose. This means that the tool might not meet the specific needs and requirements of the project, leading to inefficiencies and possibly failing to provide the expected benefits. It is crucial to evaluate and select the appropriate tool based on the project's context and objectives. The ISTQB CTFL syllabus highlights the importance of careful tool evaluation and selection to ensure it aligns with the testing goals and the development environment.

References: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 6.2, "Potential Benefits and Risks of Test Automation."

Test design is one of the fundamental activities in software testing, focusing on how tests will be structured and what strategies will be employed. As per the ISTQB syllabus, identifying appropriate test execution and automation tools is a task closely associated with test design activities because it directly influences how tests will be conducted, managed, and executed efficiently. This activity involves deciding on the tools that will best support the testing goals and requirements.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 4.4 "Test Design Techniques".

The key difference between the mindsets for test activities and development activities lies in the objectives: a tester is primarily concerned with finding defects to ensure product quality, while a developer focuses on designing and building solutions. This distinct focus helps ensure thorough quality checks and balances within the software development life cycle​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​.References:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0:

A decision table is a technique that shows combinations of inputs and/or stimuli (causes) with their associated outputs and/or actions (effects). A decision table consists of four quadrants: conditions (inputs), actions (outputs), condition entries (values) and action entries (results). The following statements about decision tables are true:

II. Test cases derived from decision tables can be used for component tests. Decision tables can be used to test components that have multiple inputs and outputs that depend on logical combinations of conditions. Decision tables can help cover all possible combinations or scenarios in a systematic way.

III. Several test cases can be selected for each column of the decision table. A column of a decision table represents a unique combination of condition entries and action entries. Several test cases can be selected for each column by varying other input values or expected results that are not part of the decision table. The following statements about decision tables are false:

I. Generally, decision tables are generated for low risk test items. Decision tables are not related to risk level, but rather to complexity level. Decision tables are generated for test items that have complex logic or multiple conditions and actions that need to be tested.

IV. The conditions in the decision table represent negative tests generally. The conditions in the decision table represent both positive and negative tests, depending on whether they are valid or invalid inputs for the test item. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 4, page 42-43.

All testing levels are applicable, independent of which software development life-cycle process (V-model, iterative, incremental) is used. Testing levels are defined based on the scope and objectives of testing, not on the software development model. Component testing, integration testing, system testing and acceptance testing are common testing levels that can be applied to any software development model, as long as they are planned and executed properly. The V-model is a software development model that emphasizes the relationship between each development phase and its corresponding testing phase. Iterative and incremental models are software development models that divide the development process into smaller cycles or iterations, where each iteration produces a working version of the software that can be tested and evaluated. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 18.

The support offered by a performance testing tool is often leveraged by testers to run load tests, which are tests that simulate a large number of concurrent users or transactions on the system under test, in order to measure its performance, reliability, and scalability. Performance testing tools can help testers to generate realistic workloads, monitor system behavior, collect and analyze performance metrics, and identify performance bottlenecks. The other statements are false, because:

A test data preparation tool is a tool that helps testers to create, manage, and manipulate test data, which are the inputs and outputs of test cases. Test data preparation tools are not directly related to running automated regression test suites, which are test suites that verify that the system still works as expected after changes or modifications. Regression test suites are usually executed by test execution tools, which are tools that can automatically run test cases and compare actual results with expected results.

A bug prediction tool is a tool that uses machine learning or statistical techniques to predict the likelihood of defects in a software system, based on various factors such as code complexity, code churn, code coverage, code smells, etc. Bug prediction tools are not used by testers to track the bugs they found, which are the actual defects that have been detected and reported during testing. Bugs are usually tracked by defect management tools, which are tools that help testers to record, monitor, analyze, and resolve defects.

A continuous integration tool is a tool that enables the integration of code changes from multiple developers into a shared repository, and the execution of automated builds and tests, in order to ensure the quality and consistency of the software system. Continuous integration tools are not used by testers to automatically generate test cases from a model, which are test cases that are derived from a representation of the system under test, such as a state diagram, a decision table, a use case, etc. Test cases can be automatically generated by test design tools, which are tools that support the implementation and maintenance of test cases, based on test design specifications or test models. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.4.1, Types of Test Tools

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Performance Testing Tool, Test Data Preparation Tool, Bug Prediction Tool, Continuous Integration Tool, Test Execution Tool, Defect Management Tool, Test Design Tool

Independent testing offers several advantages, such as unbiased testing and detection of different defects. However, a drawback is that an independent test team may be isolated from the development team and project team. This can lead to communication gaps, reduced collaboration, and a lack of understanding of the project context.

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) syllabus v4.0, an independent test team may not have the same level of understanding of the system as the development team, leading to potential issues in communication and integration​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​.

References:

Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0

ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 4.0 (2023)

In defect reporting, the attribute that indicates the degree of impact that the defect has on the system is the severity. Severity reflects the seriousness of the defect in terms of its impact on the operation of the system, ranging from minor issues that do not significantly affect the system's functionality to critical defects that can cause system failure. Therefore, option B is the correct answer​​.

Experience based techniques (EBT) are techniques that use the knowledge, intuition and skills of the test engineers to design and execute tests. EBT use tests derived from the test engineers’ previous experience with similar technologies, domains, applications or systems. EBT are not based on the ability of the test engineer to implement various testing techniques, but rather on their personal judgment and creativity. EBT are not done as a second stage of testing, after non-experience-based testing took place, but rather as a complementary or alternative approach to other techniques. EBT require broad and deep knowledge in both testing and the application or technological domain, as this can help the test engineer identify potential risks, scenarios or defects. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 5, page 48-49.

The minimum number of test cases needed to cover every unique sequence of up to 3 states/2 transitions starting in the “Start” state and ending in the “End” state is 4. This is because there are 4 unique sequences of up to 3 states/2 transitions starting in the “Start” state and ending in the “End” state:

Start -> Bet -> End

Start -> Deal -> End

Start -> 1st Deal -> End

Start -> 2nd Deal -> End References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents.

Test planning involves defining the overall approach to testing, including scheduling, resources, and milestones. It is during this phase that the detailed schedule for each testing activity is determined based on estimates, resource availability, and constraints. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 outlines that test planning encompasses the creation of test plans and schedules to ensure that testing activities are properly managed and controlled​​.

Branch coverage is a type of structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of branches or decision outcomes that are executed by the test cases. A branch is a point in the code where the control flow can take two or more alternative paths based on a condition. For example, an if-else statement is a branch that can execute either the if-block or the else-block depending on the evaluation of the condition. Branch coverage ensures that each branch is taken at least once by the test cases, and thus reveals the behavior of the software under different scenarios. Branch coverage is also known as decision coverage or all-edges coverage.

Branch coverage is suitable for testing the cases where a specific action is not allowed, because it can verify that the test cases cover all the possible outcomes of the conditions that determine the action. For example, if the program has a condition that checks if the manufacturing stage can be stopped, then branch coverage can ensure that the test cases cover both the cases where the stage can be stopped and where it cannot be stopped. This way, branch coverage can help identify any missing or incorrect branches that may lead to undesired or unsafe actions.

The other options are not correct because they are not suitable for testing the cases where a specific action is not allowed. Code coverage is a general term that encompasses various types of coverage metrics, such as statement coverage, branch coverage, data flow coverage, etc. Code coverage does not specify which type of coverage metric is used for the analysis. Data flow coverage is a type of structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of data flow paths that are executed by the test cases. A data flow path is a sequence of statements that define, use, or kill a variable. Data flow coverage is useful for testing the correctness and completeness of the data manipulation in the software, but not for testing the conditions that determine the actions. Statement coverage is a type of structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of statements or lines of code that are executed by the test cases. Statement coverage ensures that each statement is executed at least once by the test cases, but it does not reveal the behavior of the software under different scenarios. Statement coverage is a weaker criterion than branch coverage, because it does not account for the branches or decision outcomes in the code. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, Chapter 4: Test Techniques, Section 4.3: Structural Testing Techniques, Pages 51-54.

The principle of early testing is applicable to all recognized software development models, including sequential, iterative, and incremental models. Starting test activities early in the lifecycle helps in identifying and addressing defects as soon as possible, which can save time and costs by preventing defects from propagating to later stages of development. This proactive approach enhances the overall quality and efficiency of the software development process. Reference: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 1.3

Debugging is the process of finding, analyzing and removing the causes of failures in software. Debugging is not considered part of testing, but rather a development activity that can involve testing. Debugging is not intended to find as many defects as possible, but rather to fix the specific failure that was observed. Debugging is usually performed by developers, not by test engineers. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 1, page 6.

In a formal review process, the recorder's role is typically responsible for documenting the findings of the review team, including action items, decisions, and recommendations. This ensures that there is an accurate record of what was discussed and agreed upon, facilitating follow-up and continuous improvement. Therefore, statement C is correct as per the ISTQB CTFL syllabus​​.

Acceptance Test-Driven Development (ATDD) tests focus on verifying whether the system meets the specified acceptance criteria. The most critical path to test first would be the scenario where everything is done correctly (happy path), ensuring the basic functionality works as expected.

The new user provides all valid data.

This ensures the registration form works and the user receives a confirmation email.

This test covers the basic functionality and will help verify that the primary use case is handled correctly before testing invalid or edge cases.

A typical test plan includes various elements, such as resource requirements, test completion criteria, and suspension/resumption criteria. However, the list of product risks that have not been fully mitigated is generally not included in the test plan but rather in the risk management documentation.

The test plan focuses on planning and executing tests, including resource allocation and defining criteria for test suspension and resumption.

While risk management is crucial, unmitigated risks are typically documented in risk logs or separate risk management plans.

Statement coverage is a structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of executable statements in the source code that are executed by a test suite1. Decision coverage is another structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of decision outcomes (such as branches or conditions) in the source code that are executed by a test suite1. Decision coverage is a stronger metric than statement coverage, because it requires that every possible outcome of each decision is tested, while statement coverage only requires that every statement is executed at least once2. Therefore, if a test suite achieves 100% decision coverage, it also implies that it achieves 100% statement coverage, because every statement in every branch or condition must have been executed. However, the converse is not true: 100% statement coverage does not guarantee 100% decision coverage, because some branches or conditions may have multiple outcomes that are not tested by the test suite2. For example, consider the following pseudocode:

if (x > 0) then print(“Positive”) else print(“Non-positive”) end if

A test suite that executes this code with x = 1 and x = -1 will achieve 100% statement coverage, because both print statements are executed. However, it will not achieve 100% decision coverage, because the condition x > 0 has only been tested with two outcomes: true and false. The third possible outcome, x = 0, has not been tested by the test suite. Therefore, the test suite may miss a potential bug or error in the condition or the branch.

The other options, such as stale transition coverage, equivalence class coverage, and boundary value coverage, are not guaranteed to be 100% by achieving 100% decision coverage. Stale transition coverage is a structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of transitions between states in a state machine that are executed by a test suite3. Equivalence class coverage is a functional coverage metric that measures the percentage of equivalence classes (or partitions) of input or output values that are tested by a test suite4. Boundary value coverage is another functional coverage metric that measures the percentage of boundary values (or extreme values) of input or output ranges that are tested by a test suite4. These metrics are independent of decision coverage, because they are based on different aspects of the system under test, such as its behavior, functionality, or specification. Therefore, achieving 100% decision coverage does not imply achieving 100% of any of these metrics, and vice versa. References = ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Test Coverage in Software Testing - Guru99, Structural Coverage Metrics - MATLAB & Simulink - MathWorks India, Test Design Coverage in Software Testing - GeeksforGeeks.

Metrics can be collected during and at the end of testing activities to assess various aspects including progress against the planned schedule and budget, the current quality of the test object, the adequacy of the test approach, and the effectiveness of the test activities with respect to the objectives. Collecting these metrics helps in understanding the overall performance and quality of the testing process​​.

In a formal review process, the recorder's role is typically responsible for documenting the findings of the review team, including action items, decisions, and recommendations. This ensures that there is an accurate record of what was discussed and agreed upon, facilitating follow-up and continuous improvement. Therefore, statement C is correct as per the ISTQB CTFL syllabus​​.

Achieving full code coverage does not guarantee that the component or system is fully tested or free of defects. Code coverage metrics indicate the extent to which the source code has been tested, but they do not account for the quality of the tests or whether all possible scenarios have been considered. Other types of testing, including functional, performance, and security testing, are necessary to ensure comprehensive testing. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 highlights that while high code coverage is beneficial, it does not equate to complete testing​​.

The test engineer should re-run the tests, in order to ensure that new defects have not been introduced by the fix. This is also known as regression testing, which is a type of testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after a change. Regression testing helps to detect any side effects or unintended consequences of a fix or a modification. The other options are incorrect reasons for re-running the tests. The test engineer should not re-run the tests, as they have already been run, and results recorded, because this ignores the possibility of new defects caused by the fix. The test engineer should not re-run the tests, they should be part of the developer tests, because this assumes that developer tests are sufficient and reliable, which may not be true. The test engineer should not re-run the tests, because the defect shows that the test cases need to be updated, because this does not address the impact of the fix on other test cases or functionalities. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 41.

This question relates to identifying product risks, which are potential problems associated with the product itself, such as software functionality, reliability, usability, and performance. Option A describes a scenario where the application might not meet performance requirements under specific conditions (up to 300 concurrent users), which directly impacts the product's ability to perform its intended function. This is a classic example of a product risk, as it concerns the product's quality and its ability to meet user needs. Options B, C, and D, on the other hand, relate to project risks, which are concerns related to the management and execution of the project, such as tool acquisition, environment configuration, and team expertise, rather than the quality of the product itself.

Defect clustering is a testing principle that states that a small number of modules contain most of the defects detected during pre-release testing, or are responsible for most of the operational failures. Defect clustering can be explained by Pareto’s principle (also known as the 80-20 rule), which states that approximately 80% of the problems are found in 20% of the modules. Defect clustering suggests a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, as it implies that more effort should be allocated to test the modules that have shown high defect density or criticality. Pesticide paradox is another testing principle that states that if the same tests are repeated over and over again, eventually they will no longer find any new defects. Pesticide paradox suggests a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but not based on defect clustering, but rather on test diversity and coverage. Early testing is a testing principle that states that testing activities should start as early as possible in the software development life cycle and should be focused on defined objectives. Early testing does not suggest a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but rather a proactive approach to prevent defects from occurring or propagating. Absence-of-errors fallacy is a testing principle that states that finding and fixing defects does not help if the system built is unusable and does not fulfill the users’ needs and expectations. Absence-of-errors fallacy does not suggest a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but rather a focus on quality attributes and user requirements. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 1, page 9-10.

In formal reviews, the scribe's role is to collate potential defects and other findings during the review process. This position is crucial as it ensures all observations and defects are recorded accurately, facilitating efficient analysis and resolution of issues identified during the review.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.2.4 "Roles and Responsibilities in a Formal Review".

As a functional tester, you should open a defect report providing detailed information on which devices and by running which tests you observed the issue. A defect report is a document that records the occurrence, nature, and status of a defect detected during testing, and provides information for further investigation and resolution. A defect report should include relevant information such as the defect summary, the defect description, the defect severity, the defect priority, the defect status, the defect origin, the defect category, the defect reproduction steps, the defect screenshots, the defect attachments, etc. Opening a defect report is a good practice for any tester who finds a defect in the software system, regardless of the type or level of testing performed. The other options are not recommended, because:

The issue is related to performance efficiency, not functionality, but that does not mean that as a functional tester, you should not open any defect report as all the functional tests passed. Performance efficiency is a quality characteristic that measures how well the software system performs its functions under stated conditions, such as the response time, the resource utilization, the throughput, etc. Performance efficiency is an important aspect of the user experience, especially for web applications that run on different devices and networks. Even if the functional tests passed, meaning that the software system met the functional requirements, the performance issue observed on some devices could still affect the user satisfaction, the usability, the reliability, and the security of the software system. Therefore, as a functional tester, you have the responsibility to report the performance issue as a defect, and provide as much information as possible to help the developers or the performance testers to investigate and resolve it.

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0, the life cycle of a defect typically follows a sequence from its discovery to its closure. In the provided figure, it starts with S0 (New), moves to S1 (Assigned), then to S2 (Resolved), followed by S3 (Verified). If the defect is not fixed, it can be Re-opened (S5) and goes back for verification (S3). Once verified, it is Closed (S4). References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Section 1.4.3, Page 17.

One of the common risks associated with test automation tools is the underestimation of the effort required to maintain test scripts. Test scripts can become outdated or broken due to changes in the application, requiring significant effort to update and maintain them. This risk is highlighted in the ISTQB CTFL syllabus under the discussion of the benefits and risks of test automation.

References: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section on test tools and automation.

One of the primary objectives of testing is to ensure that the software or system being tested meets all regulatory requirements. This is crucial in many industries where compliance with laws and standards is mandatory. According to the ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0, testing aims to evaluate the quality of the software product and verify that it complies with specified requirements, including regulatory requirements​​.

The statement that "static testing increases development costs and time" is NOT correct. Static testing actually helps to reduce development costs and time by identifying defects early in the development process before dynamic testing is performed. Early detection of defects reduces the cost and effort required to fix them and prevents the propagation of defects to later stages, thus reducing overall testing and development costs.

References: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 3.1.2, "The Value of Static Testing."

The key difference between a peer review of code and static analysis of code using a tool lies in their approaches and scope. A peer review is a manual inspection of the code by peers or colleagues, focusing not only on the technical aspects of the code but also on other elements such as design, compliance with standards, and maintainability. Peer reviews can identify defects, suggest improvements, and ensure that the code adheres to best practices and team standards.

On the other hand, static analysis is an automated process performed by tools designed to analyze the code without executing it. These tools can detect potential issues such as syntax errors, vulnerabilities, and code smells based on predefined rules and patterns. While static analysis is technically focused, it lacks the broader perspective that human reviewers can provide, such as evaluating the code's maintainability or adherence to project-specific standards. Therefore, static analysis targets the code technically, whereas peer review encompasses a wider range of aspects, making option B the correct answer.

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

The absence-of-errors fallacy is the mistaken belief that just because a software system is free of defects, it will meet the user's needs and expectations. Involving users early through practices like prototyping helps ensure that the development team is building the right system that meets user expectations, not just a system that is defect-free. This approach aligns with the testing principle that emphasizes understanding the users' needs and ensuring the system fulfills them. This principle is explained in the ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0​​.

Data migration testing is a critical part of maintenance testing during the decommissioning of a system. When a system is decommissioned, data often needs to be transferred to another system or archived securely. This process ensures that the data remains intact, accessible, and secure in its new location. Therefore, statement B is true as it aligns with the ISTQB CTFL syllabus guidelines on handling system decommissioning and data preservation​​.

The purpose of a review is to find defects and improve the quality of the work product, not to criticize or blame the author. Reporting defects objectively means describing them factually and constructively, without using negative or emotional language that could offend the author or damage their motivation. This way, the author can take the feedback positively as an effort at improving the product and not as a personal assault. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 138.

A decision table is a technique that should be used to cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an Automated Teller Machine (ATM). A decision table shows combinations of inputs and/or stimuli (causes) with their associated outputs and/or actions (effects). A decision table consists of four quadrants: conditions (inputs), actions (outputs), condition entries (values) and action entries (results). A decision table can be used to test components that have multiple inputs and outputs that depend on logical combinations of conditions. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify three input conditions: the bank card is valid, the PIN code is correct, and money is available in the user’s account. We can also identify four output actions: the card is rejected, the ATM asks for another PIN code, the ATM asks for another amount, and the ATM dispenses the money. A decision table can show all possible combinations of these conditions and actions in a systematic way.

Use case based testing is not a technique that can cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an ATM. Use case based testing is a technique that verifies that a software product or system meets its specified requirements or user stories by executing realistic scenarios or workflows. Use case based testing can be used to test components that have complex or dynamic interactions with users or other systems. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify several use cases, such as withdraw money, check balance, transfer money, etc. Each use case can have one or more scenarios that describe the steps and outcomes of the interaction. However, use case based testing may not cover all possible combinations of input conditions, as some scenarios may be omitted or overlooked.

Boundary value analysis is not a technique that can cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an ATM. Boundary value analysis is a technique that tests boundary values between partitions of equivalent data. Boundary values are values at the edge of an equivalence partition or at the smallest incremental distance on either side of an edge. Boundary value analysis can be used to test components that have input values that can be divided into partitions of equivalent data. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify boundary values for the input amount, such as the minimum and maximum amount allowed by the system or the user’s account. However, boundary value analysis may not cover all possible combinations of input conditions, as some conditions may not have boundary values or may not be related to input values.

Equivalence class partitioning is not a technique that can cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an ATM. Equivalence class partitioning is a technique that divides the input data and output results of a software component into partitions of equivalent data. Each partition should contain data that is treated in the same way by the component. Equivalence class partitioning can be used to test components that have input values that can be divided into partitions of equivalent data. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify equivalence partitions for the input amount, such as valid amount (within the range allowed by the system and the user’s account) and invalid amount (outside the range allowed by the system or the user’s account). However, equivalence class partitioning may not cover all possible combinations of input conditions, as some conditions may not be related to input values or may have more than two partitions. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 34-46.

The critical information missing from the defect report is a detailed description of the defect to enable reproduction. A clear and concise description of the steps taken to reproduce the defect is essential for developers to understand the context and to be able to replicate the issue in their environment. Without this information, it can be challenging to diagnose and fix the defect. The ISTQB CTFL syllabus emphasizes the importance of providing all necessary details in a defect report to facilitate effective communication and resolution.

References: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 5.5, "Defect Management."

Traceability is the ability to trace 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. Traceability can provide various benefits for the testing process, such as improving the test coverage, the test quality, the test efficiency, and the test communication. However, not all the statements given are true about the value of maintaining traceability between the test basis and test work products. The statement that is not true is option C, which says that test objectives should be the same for all test levels, although the number of tests designed at various levels can vary significantly. This statement is false, because 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. Test objectives should not be the same for all test levels, as different test levels have different focuses, scopes, and perspectives of testing, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing. The other statements are true about the value of maintaining traceability between the test basis and test work products, such as:

Traceability can be useful for assessing the impact of a change to a test basis item on the corresponding tests: This statement is true, because traceability can help to identify which tests are affected by a change in the test basis, such as a new requirement, a modified design, a revised risk, etc., and to determine the necessary actions to update, re-execute, or re-evaluate the tests. Traceability can also help to estimate the effort, the cost, and the time needed to implement the change and to verify its impact on the software system.

Traceability can be useful for determining how many test basis items are covered by the corresponding tests: This statement is true, because traceability can help to measure the test coverage, which is the degree to which the test basis is exercised by the test cases. Traceability can help to identify which test basis items are covered, partially covered, or not covered by the tests, and to evaluate the adequacy, the completeness, and the effectiveness of the testing process. Traceability can also help to identify the gaps, the overlaps, or the redundancies in the test coverage, and to prioritize, optimize, or improve the test cases.

Traceability can be useful to support the needs required by the auditing of testing: This statement is true, because traceability can help to provide evidence, documentation, and justification for the testing activities, results, and outcomes. Traceability can help to demonstrate that the testing process follows the standards, the regulations, the policies, and the best practices that are applicable to the software system, the project, or the organization. Traceability can also help to verify that the testing process meets the expectations, the needs, and the satisfaction of the users and the stakeholders. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

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 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® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Traceability, Test Basis, Test Artifact, Test Objective, Test Level, Test Coverage, Test Quality, Test Risk, Test Cost, Test Time2

The correct answer can be derived by applying the given rules to each case:

A is ST certified and has 12 years of testing experience, which is more than 10 years. Therefore, A does not match any of the rules and the result is unknown.

B is not ST certified and has 7 years of testing experience, which is between 5 and 10 years. Therefore, B matches rule 3 and the result is limited access.

C is not ST certified and has 3 years of testing experience, which is less than 5 years. Therefore, C does not match any of the rules and the result is unknown. Verified References: This question does not require any external references, as it is based on logical reasoning.

The fundamental testing process includes activities that are directly related to the planning, preparation, execution, and evaluation of tests, as well as the closure activities of the testing phase. Option D, "Build release and maintenance," falls outside the scope of the fundamental testing process as it relates more to software development and operations rather than specific testing activities. Options A, "Archiving automation code," B, "Test status reporting," and C, "Test process improvement," are all activities that can be part of or associated with the fundamental testing process. Archiving automation code is part of test closure, test status reporting is part of test monitoring and control, and test process improvement can be an outcome of test closure activities.

During the review planning stage, key decisions are made, including the selection of standards and procedures to be followed during the review. This planning phase ensures that the review process is structured and adheres to agreed-upon standards, which can come from industry standards such as ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-3. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 emphasizes the importance of review planning in establishing the framework and guidelines for the review process​​.

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.

Risk management is a process that identifies, analyzes, evaluates and mitigates risks in a software project. Risks are factors that may negatively affect the quality, schedule, budget or scope of a software project. The main goals of risk management in a software project are to reduce the probability of undesired situations and to reduce the effect of potential impact. This can be achieved by applying various strategies, such as avoidance, transfer, reduction or acceptance. Risk management does not aim to increase the success probability for the project regardless of costs, as this may not be feasible or realistic. Risk management does not aim to increase focus on preventative processes and to increase satisfaction for the testers, as these are secondary or indirect outcomes. Risk management does not aim to control contractual problems and minimize the impacts of company policies, as these are specific types of risks that may not apply to all projects. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 2, page 14-15.

Analyzing and removing the cause of failures is not an objective of testing, but rather a task of development or maintenance. A failure is an event or behavior that deviates from the expected or specified result of a system under test. A failure is caused by an error (also known as a mistake or a fault) in the software code, design, or specification. Analyzing and removing the cause of failures is a process of locating and fixing errors in the software code, design, or specification, which is also known as debugging or defect resolution. Analyzing and removing the cause of failures does not aim to find or report defects, but rather to correct or prevent them. The other options are objectives of testing. Finding defects is one of the main objectives of testing, as it helps to improve the quality and reliability of the software product. Providing information for decision-making is another objective of testing, as it helps to support decision making and risk management. Gaining confidence about the level of quality of the software is another objective of testing, as it helps to assure that the software product meets its requirements and customer or user needs and expectations. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 3.

According to the ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, page 18, a failure is “an event in which a component or system does not perform a required function within specified limits”. In this case, the calculator software does not perform the required function of calculating the correct result for 5+6 within the specified limits of accuracy and precision. Therefore, this is an example of a failure.

The other options are incorrect because:

A mistake is “a human action that produces an incorrect result” (page 25). A mistake is not an event, but an action, and it may or may not lead to a failure. For example, a mistake could be a typo in the code, a wrong assumption in the design, or a misunderstanding of the requirement.

A fault is “a defect in a component or system that can cause the component or system to fail to perform its required function” (page 16). A fault is not an event, but a defect, and it may or may not cause a failure. For example, a fault could be a logical error in the code, a missing specification in the design, or a contradiction in the requirement.

An error is “the difference between a computed, observed, or measured value or condition and the true, specified, or theoretically correct value or condition” (page 15). An error is not an event, but a difference, and it may or may not result in a failure. For example, an error could be a rounding error in the calculation, a measurement error in the observation, or a deviation error in the condition.

References = ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, pages 15-18, 25; ISTQB CTFL 4.0 - Sample Exam - Answers, Version 1.1, 2023, Question 96, page 34.

Effort estimate does not depend on the budget of the project, but rather on the scope, complexity, and quality of the software product and the testing activities1. Budget is a constraint that may affect the feasibility and accuracy of the effort estimate, but it is not a factor that determines the effort estimate. Effort estimate is the amount of work required to complete the testing activities, measured in terms of person-hours, person-days, or person-months2.

The other options are correct because:

A. Once the test effort is estimated, resources can be identified and a schedule can be drawn up, as they are interrelated aspects of the test planning process3. Resources are the people, tools, equipment, and facilities needed to perform the testing activities4. Schedule is the time frame and sequence of the testing activities, aligned with the project milestones and deadlines5.

B. Effort estimate can be inaccurate because the quality of the product under tests is not known, as it affects the number and severity of the defects that may be found and the rework that may be needed to fix them6. Quality is the degree to which the software product satisfies the specified requirements and meets the needs and expectations of the users and clients7.

D. Experience based estimation is one of the estimation techniques, which relies on the judgment and expertise of the testers and other project stakeholders to estimate the test effort based on similar projects or tasks done in the past. Experience based estimation can be useful when there is a lack of historical data, formal methods, or detailed information about the software product and the testing activities.

References =

1 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 154

2 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 155

3 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 156

4 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 157

5 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 158

6 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 159

7 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 16

[8] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 160

[9] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 161

The whole team approach involves collaboration among all team members, including testers, developers, and business representatives, to achieve quality goals. However, this approach may not be suitable in situations where a high level of test independence is required. Test independence is essential in cases where unbiased testing is critical, such as in regulated environments or where high-risk systems are involved. This is because team members might unintentionally influence each other's work, leading to potential bias in testing outcomes​​.

The ISTQB CTFL syllabus identifies several causes for defects in software. One prominent reason, as highlighted in the curriculum, is the pressure and rush to meet tight deadlines, which can lead to insufficiently reviewed or tested code being moved into further stages of testing or production. This scenario describes rushing to meet a deadline as a potential cause for defects because it may compromise the thoroughness of code development and testing.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 1.4.1 "Why is Testing Necessary?".

 Static testing is a form of testing that does not involve executing the software or system under test. It includes activities such as reviews, inspections, walkthroughs, and analysis of documents, code, and models. Static testing can find defects early in the development process, before they become more expensive and difficult to fix in later stages. Static testing can also improve the quality of the software or system by preventing defects from being introduced in the first place. Static testing can complement dynamic testing, which involves executing the software or system under test and checking the results against expected outcomes. Dynamic testing can find defects that static testing may miss, such as performance, usability, or integration issues. However, dynamic testing alone is not sufficient to ensure quality, as it may not cover all possible scenarios, inputs, or paths. Therefore, a test manager who decides to skip static testing is making a wrong decision, as he or she is ignoring the benefits of static testing and relying solely on dynamic testing, which may not be effective or efficient enough to find and prevent defects. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 4.0, 2018, Section 2.1.1, page 14; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, page 36; ISTQB CTFL 4.0 - Sample Exam - Answers, Version 1.1, 2023, Question 3, page 9.

Equivalence partitioning is a black-box test design technique where inputs to the software or system are divided into groups that are expected to exhibit similar behavior. For an integer field that should accept values from 1 to 15, the valid equivalence class is 1 through 15. The invalid equivalence classes are numbers less than 1 and numbers more than 15. Therefore, option D, "Less than 1, 1 through 15, more than 15," correctly identifies the valid equivalence class along with the two invalid classes, covering all possible input scenarios for the field. Options A, B, and C either do not accurately capture the valid range or incorrectly specify the range boundaries.

 Functional testing is an example of black-box dynamic testing. Black-box testing (also known as specification-based testing) is a type of testing that does not consider the internal structure or implementation of the system under test, but rather its external behavior or functionality. Dynamic testing is a type of testing that involves executing the system under test with various inputs and observing its outputs. Functional testing is a type of black-box dynamic testing that verifies that the system under test performs its intended functions according to its requirements or specifications. Functional testing can be performed at various levels and scopes depending on the objectives and criteria of testing. The other options are not examples of black-box dynamic testing. Code inspection is an example of white-box static testing. White-box testing (also known as structure-based testing) is a type of testing that considers the internal structure or implementation of the system under test. Static testing is a type of testing that does not involve executing the system under test, but rather analyzing it for defects, errors, or violations of standards. Code inspection is a type of white-box static testing that involves examining the source code of the system under test for quality, readability, maintainability, etc. Checking memory leaks for a program by executing it is an example of white-box dynamic testing. Memory leaks are defects that occur when a program fails to release memory that it has allocated but no longer needs. Checking memory leaks for a program by executing it requires knowledge and access to the internal structure or implementation of the program, such as memory allocation and deallocation mechanisms, pointers, references, etc. Coverage analysis is an example of white-box static testing. Coverage analysis is a technique that measures how much of the code or structure of the system under test has been exercised by a test suite. Coverage analysis requires knowledge and access to the internal structure or implementation of the system under test, such as statements, branches, paths, conditions, etc. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 7.

 The thought process of the software company is incorrect, because it assumes that each artifact can be reviewed using only one review method, and that the review method depends solely on the criticality of the artifact. This is a simplistic and rigid approach that does not consider the benefits and limitations of different review methods, the context and purpose of the review, and the feedback and improvement opportunities that can be gained from multiple reviews. According to the CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, the selection of review methods should be based on several factors, such as the type and level of detail of the artifact, the availability and competence of the reviewers, the time and budget constraints, the expected defects and risks, and the desired outcomes and quality criteria. Moreover, the same artifact can be reviewed using different review methods at different stages of the development lifecycle, to ensure that the artifact meets the changing requirements, standards, and expectations of the stakeholders. For example, a requirement specification can be reviewed using an informal review method, such as a walkthrough, to get an initial feedback from the users and developers, and then using a formal review method, such as an inspection, to verify the completeness, correctness, and consistency of the specification. Therefore, the software company should adopt a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to selecting and applying review methods for different artifacts, rather than following a fixed and arbitrary rule. References = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 3.2.1, page 31-32; Section 3.2.2, page 33-34; Section 3.2.3, page 35-36.

When writing a defect report, the tester can specify the expected result and the actual result based on the observation. The expected result is what the requirements specify, and the actual result is what was observed during testing. These elements are crucial for clearly communicating the nature of the defect to developers and other stakeholders. The other items such as test environment, test level, and root cause may not be clear or necessary at this stage of defect reporting.

References: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section on defect management and reporting.