CTFL_Syll_4.0 Exam Dumps - ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0

The test pyramid is a concept that illustrates the different levels of testing and their relative quantities. The pyramid suggests that there should be more low-level unit tests than high-level end-to-end tests. As you move up the pyramid, the scope of each test increases, meaning each higher level test typically covers more of the production code.

Unit Tests: Form the base of the pyramid and cover individual units of code. They are numerous because they are quick to write and execute.

Service/Integration Tests: Sit in the middle of the pyramid and cover interactions between integrated units or services.

UI/End-to-End Tests: At the top of the pyramid, these tests cover entire workflows and user interactions, making them fewer in number due to their complexity and execution time.

Option B accurately describes that the higher the layer of the test pyramid, the more production code a single automated test tends to cover because these higher-level tests involve broader functionalities and interactions compared to unit tests.

The acceptance criteria associated with a user story are the conditions that must be met for the user story to be considered done and to deliver the expected value to the user. They are often written in different formats, such as rule-oriented, scenario-oriented, or table-oriented, depending on the nature and complexity of the user story. They represent an aspect of a user story referred to as confirmation, which is one of the so called “3 C’s” of user stories. The other two aspects are card and conversation. Card refers to the concise and informal description of the user story, usually following the template: “As a [role], I want [feature], so that I can [benefit]”. Conversation refers to the ongoing dialogue between the stakeholders and the team members to clarify and refine the user story and its acceptance criteria. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 3.2.2, page 35-36; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 37.

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.

Experience-based testing techniques are adopted for several reasons, most importantly because they can identify defects that might be missed by more systematic approaches like black-box and white-box testing. While systematic techniques follow predefined procedures and cover specific criteria, experience-based techniques leverage the tester's knowledge, intuition, and experience, which can be especially effective in uncovering subtle and complex issues.

Experience-based testing techniques include methods such as error guessing and exploratory testing. These methods rely on the tester’s background and intuition to predict where defects might be located and how the system might fail. These techniques are particularly useful in situations where the requirements and specifications are incomplete or ambiguous, and where creative and ad-hoc approaches can provide significant value.

References:

The official ISTQB® CTFL syllabus emphasizes that experience-based techniques can find defects that more systematic techniques might miss, which makes them valuable complements to other testing methods​​.

Experience-based testing techniques are adopted for several reasons, most importantly because they can identify defects that might be missed by more systematic approaches like black-box and white-box testing. While systematic techniques follow predefined procedures and cover specific criteria, experience-based techniques leverage the tester's knowledge, intuition, and experience, which can be especially effective in uncovering subtle and complex issues.

Experience-based testing techniques include methods such as error guessing and exploratory testing. These methods rely on the tester’s background and intuition to predict where defects might be located and how the system might fail. These techniques are particularly useful in situations where the requirements and specifications are incomplete or ambiguous, and where creative and ad-hoc approaches can provide significant value.

References:

The official ISTQB® CTFL syllabus emphasizes that experience-based techniques can find defects that more systematic techniques might miss, which makes them valuable complements to other testing methods​​.

During release planning, a tester adds value by assessing the testability of user stories. This involves evaluating whether the user stories are clear, concise, and testable. The tester ensures that the acceptance criteria are well-defined and that the stories can be effectively tested within the given timeframe.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.1.2 on the tester's contribution to iteration and release planning, which includes assessing the testability of user stories​​.

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.

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

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

Test D should be executed before Test B.

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

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

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