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

There are two main approaches to test estimation:

Expert-based approach:

The Wideband Delphi estimation technique is an example of this approach.

Involves consulting expert​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​ate testing efforts.

This technique gathers estimates from multiple experts, discusses their differences, and achieves consensus.

Metrics-based approach:

Relies on historical data and metrics to predict future testing efforts.

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, the expert-based approach relies on experts' experience and knowledge, which aligns with the Wideband Delphi technique【6†source】.

References:

Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0

ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 4.0 (2023)

The test pyramid concept suggests that there should be more low-level tests (unit tests) and fewer high-level tests (end-to-end tests).

As we move higher up the pyramid (e.g., from unit tests to integration tests to end-to-end tests), each test covers more production code.

Higher-level tests (like end-to-end) validate larger parts of the application, including multiple units and their interactions.

This aligns with the principle that higher-level tests provide broader coverage but are fewer in number and more expensive to run and maintain.

Equivalence 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 partitioning can be used to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. Equivalence partitioning is suitable for testing the price computation, as it can identify different partitions based on the passenger type, the travelling type, the distance and the kind of transport. Equivalence partitioning is not statement coverage, which is a technique that measures how many executable statements in a source code are executed by a test suite. Statement coverage is not appropriate for testing the price computation, as it does not consider the input data or output results. Equivalence partitioning is not state transition testing, which is a technique that models how a system transitions from one state to another depending on events or conditions. State transition testing is not relevant for testing the price computation, as it does not involve any states or transitions. Equivalence partitioning is not use case testing, which is a technique that tests how users interact with a system to achieve a specific goal. Use case testing is not applicable for testing the price computation, as it does not focus on a single function or component. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 37-38.

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​​.

Maintenance testing is triggered by changes such as bug fixes, enhancements, or environmental changes.

Option A: "Completion of architecture of the bank system" is not a typical scenario for maintenance testing, as it describes a design phase rather than an operational change.

Option B: "Release of the early draft of the low level project design of an IoT application" is again not suitable for maintenance testing, as it refers to the design phase.

Option C: "Defect was found in a pre-released version of the customer service application" is closer but not quite accurate, as maintenance testing focuses on changes mad​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​system is released.

Option D: "Delivery of the hot fix to mobile operating system and ensuring that it still works" is the best example as it directly involves testing after a fix has been implemented.

Therefore, the correct answer is D【6†source】.

References:

Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0

ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 4.0 (2023)

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.

Regression testing is the re-running of functional and non-functional tests to ensure that previously developed and tested software still performs as expected after a change1 It does not involve retesting of a fixed defect, testing of new functionality, or applying only to functional testing. Tests that are used for regression testing should be repeatable, because they are used to verify the stability of the software after each change2 References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2, Page 291; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Page 292

In the context of software testing, the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 differentiates between "validation" and "verification" based on their respective focuses in the software development lifecycle. Verification is the process of evaluating a system or component to determine whether the products of a given development phase satisfy the conditions imposed at the start of that phase. In simpler terms, verification is about checking the product against the specified requirements to ensure it was built correctly. Validation, on the other hand, involves evaluating a system or component during or at the end of the development process to determine whether it meets specified requirements for its intended use. This means validation is about ensuring the product fulfills its intended use and meets the needs of the user.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0: ISTQB Official Website

ISTQB Foundation Level Resources v4.0: ASTQB Resources