CTFL-AT Exam Dumps - Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester

The best black box test design technique for verifying the accuracy of this user story is equivalence partitioning. Equivalence partitioning is a technique that divides the input domain of a system into classes or groups that are expected to behave similarly. By testing one value from each class, the tester can reduce the number of test cases while still achieving good coverage. In this case, the input domainof the system is the amount of income, which can be divided into classes based on the tax percentage applied to different income ranges. For example, if the tax percentage is 10% for income below 10,000, 20% for income between 10,000 and 20,000, and 30% for income above 20,000, then the equivalence classes are: low income (<10,000), medium income (10,000-20,000), and high income (>20,000). By testing one value from each class, such as 5,000, 15,000, and 25,000, the tester can verify that the system calculates the correct tax percentage for each income range. This technique is more efficient and effective than testing all possible values of income, or testing only one value of income, or testing the states of income entry, or testing the statements in income calculation. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.3.1, page 19; ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Sample Exam Questions2, Question 5, page 6.

Continuous integration is a practice of integrating code changes frequently and automatically into a shared repository, and running automated tests to verify the integration. Continuous integration can introduce some risks to the testing process, such as:

• Testers sometimes have too many builds to test, which reduces the quality of testing. This can happen when the code changes are too frequent or too large, and the testers do not have enough time or resources to test each build thoroughly. This can lead to missed defects, incomplete test coverage, and reduced confidence in the product quality.
• Testers sometimes have to deal with unstable or broken builds, which affects the testability of the product. This can happen when the code changes introduce errors or conflicts that cause the build to fail or malfunction. This can waste the testers’ time and effort, and delay the feedback cycle.
• Testers sometimes have to cope with changing requirements and priorities, which affects the test planning and execution. This can happen when the stakeholders or customers provide new or modified requirements or feedback during the development cycle. This can require the testers to adapt their test strategy, test cases, and test data accordingly, and to balance the testing of new features and regression testing of existing features. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.2.3, page 14; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, page 15.

The 3C concept of user stories consists of three elements: card, conversation, and confirmation12. The card is a written description of the user story that captures the essence of the feature or functionality from the user’s perspective. The conversation is a dialogue between the product owner and the development team to clarify the details, assumptions, and expectations of the user story. The confirmation is a set of criteria or tests that verify that the user story is implemented correctly and meets the user’s needs12. Therefore, by applying the 3C concept, the correct statement is A, as the conversation should include the acceptance criteria discussion. This will help the team to understand the scope, priority, and value of the user story, as well as the conditions of satisfaction that the product owner expects12. The other statements are incorrect, as they violate the 3C concept. Statement B is wrong, as the card should contain the user story, not the requirements. The user story is a brief and informal way of expressing the user’s goal and benefit, while the requirements are more detailed and specific descriptions of how the software should work. The requirements can be added later as part of the conversation or confirmation12. Statement C is wrong, as the product owner has written a user story, but confirmation is still needed. The confirmation is a vital part of the 3C concept, as it ensures that the user story is testable, measurable, and verifiable. The confirmation also helps to avoid ambiguity, misunderstanding, or disagreement between the product owner and the development team12. Statement D is wrong, as the conversation is required and the team should not start developing without it. The conversation is an essential part of the 3C concept, as it allows the team to ask questions, share ideas, and collaborate with the product owner to refine the user story and reach a shared understanding. The conversation also helps to identify the dependencies, risks, and assumptions that may affect the implementation of the user story12. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.2.1, page 16-17; Effective User Stories - 3C’s and INVEST Guide2, Section The 3 C’s (Card, Conversation, Confirmation) of User Stories.

According to the ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, a retrospective is a meeting held at the end of each iteration or release, where the agile team reflects on what went well and what can be improved in their processes, practices, and interactions. The purpose of a retrospective is to identify and implement actions for continuous improvement, and to foster a culture of learning and collaboration. Therefore, the items that would be the most effective to generate discussions on process improvement are those that are related to the team’s performance, challenges, feedback, and suggestions. Option D is the least effective item to generate discussions on process improvement, as it is a personal attack on one of the team members, and it does not offer any constructive feedback or solution. This kind of item can create a negative and hostile atmosphere in the retrospective, and damage the trust and respect among the team members. Option A is an effective item to generate discussions on processimprovement, as it identifies a problem with the build process that affects the team’s efficiency and quality, and it can lead to finding ways to optimize the build process or to mitigate the delays. Option B is also an effective item to generate discussions on process improvement, as it reveals a discrepancy between the team’s estimation and actual effort, and it can lead to analyzing the root causes of the deviation and to improving the estimation techniques or the team’s capacity. Option C is also an effective item to generate discussions on process improvement, as it highlights a weakness in the automation tests that hinders the team’s ability to debug and fix the failures, and it can lead to enhancing the automation tests with better logging mechanisms or to reviewing the automation strategy. References: ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.1.1, page 14; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.1.2, page 15; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.1, page 16; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.2, page 17.