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

One of the generic skills required for the role of a tester is the ability to use tools to make the execution of repetitive testing tasks more efficient. This includes using various test automation tools to streamline the testing process, reduce manual effort, and improve the consistency and accuracy of test results. Testers should be proficient in leveraging these tools to enhance productivity and ensure comprehensive test coverage.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 1.5.1, page 20: General Skills Required for Testing

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​​.

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

The 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

When a document management system is decommissioned, maintenance testing must include data migration testing to ensure that all documents are correctly transferred to a state archive, meeting legal requirements for long-term storage. This process verifies that data integrity is maintained during migration.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 2.3, page 29: Maintenance Testing and Data Migration​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project risks are the uncertainties or threats that may affect the project objectives, such as scope, schedule, cost, and quality. According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, some of the factors that contribute to project risks are:

Skill and staff shortages: This factor refers to the lack of adequate or qualified human resources to perform the project tasks. This may result in delays, errors, rework, or low productivity.

Problems in defining the right requirements: This factor refers to the difficulties or ambiguities in eliciting, analyzing, specifying, validating, or managing the requirements of the project. This may result in misalignment, inconsistencies, gaps, or changes in the requirements, affecting the project scope and quality.

Contractual issues: This factor refers to the challenges or disputes that may arise from the contractual agreements between the project parties, such as clients, suppliers, vendors, or subcontractors. This may result in legal, financial, or ethical risks, affecting the project delivery and satisfaction.

The other options are not correct because they list factors that contribute to PRODUCT risks, not project risks. Product risks are the uncertainties or threats that may affect the quality or functionality of the software product or system. Some of the factors that contribute to product risks are:

Poor software quality characteristics: This factor refers to the lack of adherence or compliance to the quality attributes or criteria of the software product or system, such as reliability, usability, security, performance, or maintainability. This may result in defects, failures, or dissatisfaction of the users or stakeholders.

Software does not perform its intended functions: This factor refers to the deviation or discrepancy between the expected and actual behavior or output of the software product or system. This may result in errors, faults, or malfunctions of the software product or system.

References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Testing, Section 1.5: Risks and Testing, Pages 14-16.

ï‚· Product Risks: Relate to the quality of the software product itself, such as functionality, performance, security, and user experience.

II: A session management issue affects the product's security and functionality.

IV: Inability to maintain operation and data corruption directly affects the product's reliability and data integrity.

ï‚· Project Risks: Relate to the circumstances and activities within the project, such as schedule, resources, and planning.

I: Poor hardware equipment for performance testing impacts the project's ability to conduct performance tests.

III: Inadequate requirement specifications affect the project timeline and the ability to design tests.

Independent of the software development lifecycle followed, it is a good practice to ensure that each test level (e.g., unit testing, integration testing, system testing) has clear and appropriate objectives. This ensures that the testing is focused and effective at each level. Other options either contradict good practices or are not applicable across all lifecycle models.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 1.4.1 on test levels and objectives, emphasizing the importance of defining clear test objectives for each level of testing​​.

Test planning is a critical phase in the software testing life cycle where the schedule for each testing activity and test milestones for a test project are determined. This involves using activity estimates, available resources, and other constraints to outline a comprehensive plan for the entire testing process. The main objective of test planning is to ensure that all testing activities are well-coordinated and that the testing process is efficient and effective. This phase sets the foundation for subsequent phases such as test analysis, test design, and test execution by providing a clear roadmap and allocation of resources.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 5.1, page 47: Test Planning

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​​.

Acceptance criteria for user stories are crucial in defining the specific requirements that a piece of software must meet to be accepted by the user or stakeholder. These criteria often include data definitions such as format, allowed values, and default values, ensuring that the software behaves correctly with the expected data inputs.

Option A is incorrect because user acceptance tests are not usually automated; they are often conducted manually by end-users. Option C is incorrect because acceptance criteria should cover both positive and negative scenarios to ensure comprehensive testing. Option D is incorrect because tests derived from acceptance criteria can indeed be included in the testing quadrants, particularly in the quadrant related to business-facing tests that critique the product.

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

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

Test Case TC1 = 299999:

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

Expected Result: No bonus should be paid.

Actual Result: No bonus paid.

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

Test Case TC2 = 300000:

This value is exactly at the boundary.

Expected Result: Bonus should be paid.

Actual Result: Bonus paid.

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

Test Case TC3 = 300001:

This value is just above the boundary.

Expected Result: Bonus should be paid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole team approach in testing means that the responsibility for testing is shared among all members of the team, not just the testers. This concept is emphasized in agile methodologies where collaboration and collective ownership of quality are key principles. Each team member, including developers, business analysts, and testers, contributes to the testing process, ensuring that quality is built into the product from the beginning.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 1.5.2 on the "whole team approach" which describes the collective responsibility of the team for testing​​.

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The business-facing quadrant that supports the team is focused on tests that validate the system against user stories. These tests ensure that the system delivers the value and functionality described by the user stories, which are central to agile methodologies.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.1.7 on the testing quadrants, particularly the business-facing tests that support the team and are based on user stories​​.

Test planning is a critical phase in the software testing life cycle where the schedule for each testing activity and test milestones for a test project are determined. This involves using activity estimates, available resources, and other constraints to outline a comprehensive plan for the entire testing process. The main objective of test planning is to ensure that all testing activities are well-coordinated and that the testing process is efficient and effective. This phase sets the foundation for subsequent phases such as test analysis, test design, and test execution by providing a clear roadmap and allocation of resources.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 5.1, page 47: Test Planning

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.

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

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

References:

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

This answer is correct because error guessing is a test design technique where the experience and intuition of the tester are used to anticipate where errors, defects and failures have occurred or are likely to occur, and to design test cases to expose them. Error guessing can be based on factors such as the complexity of the system or component, the known or suspected weaknesses of the system or component, the previous history of defects, or the common types of errors in the domain or technology. Error guessing can be used as a complementary technique to other more systematic or formal techniques, or when there is insufficient information or time to apply them. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.5

According to the description provided, when both systems A and B come back up at the same time, the process should involve a decision about which system should become active. However, the description states that if both systems come up simultaneously, one should become active based on a specific condition or precedence. Generally, in disaster recovery systems, there are protocols to avoid both systems becoming active simultaneously to prevent conflicts. Therefore, the transition where both A and B come back up at the same time and A becomes active while B becomes inactive without any conflict or decision-making step is incorrect​​.

Exercising at least one of the decision outcomes for all decisions within the code, ensures achieving full branch coverage, which is a test coverage criterion that requires that all branches in the control flow of the code are executed at least once by the test cases. A branch is a basic block of code that has a single entry point and a single exit point, and a decision is a point in the code where the control flow can take more than one direction, such as an if-then-else statement, a switch-case statement, a loop statement, etc. The decision outcomes are the possible paths that can be taken from a decision, such as the then branch or the else branch, the case branch or the default branch, the loop body or the loop exit, etc. The other statements are false, because:

The minimum number of test cases needed to achieve full branch coverage, is usually higher than that needed to achieve full statement coverage, which is a test coverage criterion that requires that all executable statements in the code are executed at least once by the test cases. This is because branch coverage is a stronger criterion than statement coverage, as it implies statement coverage, but not vice versa. For example, a single test case can achieve full statement coverage for an if-then-else statement, but two test cases are needed to achieve full branch coverage, as both the then branch and the else branch need to be exercised.

If full branch coverage has been achieved, then all unconditional branches within the code have not necessarily been exercised, as unconditional branches are branches that do not depend on any decision, and are always executed, such as a goto statement, a break statement, a return statement, etc. Unconditional branches are not part of the branch coverage criterion, as they do not represent different paths in the control flow of the code. However, they are part of the statement coverage criterion, as they are executable statements in the code.

If full branch coverage has been achieved, then all combinations of conditions in a decision table have not necessarily been exercised, as a decision table is a test design technique that represents the logical relationships between multiple conditions and their corresponding actions, in a tabular format. A decision table can have more combinations of conditions than the number of decision outcomes in the code, as each condition can have two or more possible values, such as true or false, yes or no, etc. For example, a decision table with four conditions can have 16 combinations of conditions, but the corresponding code may have only two decision outcomes, such as pass or fail. To exercise all combinations of conditions in a decision table, a stronger test coverage criterion is needed, such as condition combination coverage, which requires that all possible combinations of condition outcomes in the code are executed at least once by the test cases. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.3.1, Test Coverage Criteria Based on the Structure of the Software

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Branch Coverage, Statement Coverage, Branch, Decision, Decision Outcome, Unconditional Branch, Decision Table, Condition Combination Coverage

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

References:

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

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

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

To get familiar with the functionality and options of the tool

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

To assess the benefits and challenges of using the tool

To decide upon standards and guidelines for tool implementation and usage

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

Configuration management (CM) in the context of testing involves the process of managing changes to the software and its associated artifacts, such as test plans, test cases, test scripts, and test results. It ensures that all changes are systematically tracked and controlled throughout the software development lifecycle.

Option A: Incorrect. While CM supports consistency in test environments, it is not specifically about comparing expected and actual results.

Option B: Correct. CM allows tracking all changes to versions of testware, ensuring that the correct versions are used and any changes are documented and managed.

Option C: Incorrect. This describes quality management, not configuration management.

Option D: Incorrect. Configuration management does not focus on configuring static analysis tools.

A static analysis tool is best suited for determining source code compliance with the guidelines provided by a coding standard. Static analysis tools analyze code without executing it, checking for adherence to coding standards, potential errors, and code quality issues. They are designed to detect deviations from predefined coding standards and ensure that the code conforms to best practices and guidelines.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 3.2.3 on Static Analysis and its applications

The syllabus explains that static analysis tools are used to enforce coding standards and improve code quality by detecting issues early in the development process​​.

CTFL NEW

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​​.

A configuration management tool helps in maintaining and managing changes to software, including test cases. It ensures that changes are tracked and can be retrieved if needed. In this scenario, using a configuration management tool would have allowed Sam's updates to be stored in a central repository, preventing the loss of his work even if his PC's hard disk crashed.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.4 on configuration management, which describes the role of configuration management tools in maintaining control over changes​​.

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

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

Test Case TC1 = 299999:

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

Expected Result: No bonus should be paid.

Actual Result: No bonus paid.

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

Test Case TC2 = 300000:

This value is exactly at the boundary.

Expected Result: Bonus should be paid.

Actual Result: Bonus paid.

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

Test Case TC3 = 300001:

This value is just above the boundary.

Expected Result: Bonus should be paid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This answer is correct because product risks are risks that affect the quality of the software product, such as defects, failures, or non-compliance with requirements or standards. Project risks are risks that affect the project’s schedule, budget, resources, or scope, such as delays, cost overruns, skill gaps, or scope changes. In this case, [I] and [IV] are product risks, as they relate to the accessibility and security of the software product, which are quality attributes. [II] and [III] are project risks, as they relate to the delivery time and the test automation skills of the test team, which are project factors. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.1.1.1

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

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

Initial Configuration: CONF1.

Dependencies:

TC1 depends on nothing.

TC2 depends on TC4.

TC3 depends on TC4.

TC4 depends on nothing.

TC5 depends on TC1.

Configuration Requirements:

TC1 requires CONF2.

TC2 requires CONF2.

TC3 requires CONF1.

TC4 requires CONF1.

TC5 requires CONF2.

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

Start with TC4 (no dependencies, CONF1).

Continue with TC3 (depends on TC4, CONF1).

Switch to CONF2.

Execute TC2 (depends on TC4, CONF2).

Continue with TC1 (no dependencies, CONF2).

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

Therefore, the correct order is:

TC4 (CONF1)

TC3 (CONF1)

TC2 (CONF2)

TC1 (CONF2)

TC5 (CONF2)

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