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

Test automation is essential for agile projects, as it enables fast and frequent feedback on the quality of the product. Without test automation, it would be very difficult to ensure high quality in an agile project, as manual testing would be too slow and costly to keep up with the pace of development12. Automated acceptance tests are one of the key types of test automation on agile projects, as they verify that the user stories are implemented correctly and that the product meets the customer’s expectations. Automated acceptance tests are run regularly as part of the continuous integration full system build, and the results provide feedback on the overall product quality12. Therefore, statements 2 and 5 are correct with regards to test automation on agile projects. References: 1: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Section 3.3.1, Test Automation1; 2: ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Section 3.3.1, Test Automation2

 Equivalence partitioning is a black-box test design technique that divides the input domain of a system into classes of data from which test cases can be derived. The idea is that if a system works correctly for a representative value from an equivalence class, it will work correctly for all values from that class, and vice versa. Equivalence partitioning reduces the number of test cases by eliminating redundant ones. For the given user story, equivalence partitioning is the most suitable technique because it can test the different outcomes of the annual car tax calculation based on the power of the vehicle, which is the main input for the system. By testing one value from each partition, the tester can verify the functionality of the system and detect any errors in the calculation logic. The other techniques are not as suitable because they do not focus on the inputdomain of the system, but rather on the conditions, transitions, or scenarios that are not directly related to the user story. References:

• : ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.2.2
• : ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Agile Testing Foundations, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2
• : 3

Acceptance test criteria are the conditions that a user story must satisfy to be accepted by the customer or the stakeholder. They are usually derived from the user story and its acceptance scenarios, and they should cover the functional and non-functional requirements of the user story. Acceptance test criteria should be clear, concise, testable, and agreed upon by the team and the customer or the stakeholder.

In this case, the user story describes the business rule for approving a loan request based on the customer’s income, repayment history, and loan amount. The user story also specifies the roles of the customer assistant and the bank manager in the process. Therefore, the acceptance test criteria should verify that the user story is implemented correctly and that the system behaves as expected for different scenarios and inputs.

The following test cases can be treated as acceptance test criteria for the above user story:

• As a customer assistant I can log in to the system and check the history of the customer account for the last year. This test case verifies that the customer assistant can access the system and view the customer’s income information, which is one of the factors for approving the loan request.
• As a customer assistant I can log in to the system and check the history of the customer debts and repayments. This test case verifies that the customer assistant can access the system and view the customer’s repayment history, which is another factor for approving the loan request.
• As a bank manager I can log in to the system and receive the information of all requests waiting for approval. This test case verifies that the bank manager can access the system and see the list of loan requests that have been prepared by the customer assistant, and that the system provides the necessary information for each request.
• As a bank manager I can log in to the system and decide whether to approve a loan for a customer. This test case verifies that the bank manager can access the system and perform the approval action for a loan request, and that the system applies the business rule correctly and updates the status of the request accordingly.

The following test cases cannot be treated as acceptance test criteria for the above user story:

• As a customer assistant I can log in to the system and change my password. This test case is not related to the user story, as it does not verify any of the functional or non-functional requirements of the user story. It is a generic test case that applies to any user of the system, not specific to the customer assistant role or the loan approval process.
• As a bank manager I can log in to the system within 10 seconds. This test case is not related to the user story, as it does not verify any of the functional or non-functional requirements of the user story. It is a performance test case that applies to any user of the system, not specific to the bank manager role or the loan approval process.

References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.3.1, pages 15-16; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, pages 2 and 3.

The test charter for the exploratory testing session is focused on buying a bus ticket, not a parking ticket. Therefore, any defect related to the payment for parking ticket is out of scope for the given test charter. The other defects are related to the functionality, usability, or reliability of buying a bus ticket, which are in scope for the test charter. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.3.2 Exploratory Testing1, Section 2.3.2.1 Test Charter2; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 3.2, 2017, Definition of Test Charter3

1: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.3.2 Exploratory Testing 2: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.3.2.1 Test Charter 3: [ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 3.2, 2017, Definition of Test Charter]

 Early and frequent feedback is one of the core values of Agile development. It helps the Agile team to deliver features with the highest business value first, to discover and resolve quality problems as soon as possible, to provide information on the team’s productivity and progress, and to ensure that the product meets the customer’s expectations and needs. However, early feedback does not necessarily decrease the amount of time needed for system testing, as system testing is still an important activity in Agile projects to verify the integration and functionality of the whole system. Early feedback may reduce the number of defects found in system testing, but it does not eliminate the need for system testing. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus1, page 10; ISTQB Agile Tester Sample Exam2, question 11.

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.