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

Static analysis is a technique that analyzes the source code or other software artifacts without executing them. Static analysis can detect defects such as syntax errors, coding standards violations, potential security vulnerabilities, or logical flaws. Static analysis can catch the bug in the first implementation, as it contains two syntax errors: the variable y is declared twice, and the assignment statement X = y=z is invalid. Static analysis cannot catch the bugs in the other three implementations, as they are logical errors that do not violate any syntax rules, but produce incorrect results. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 3, page 25-26.

Looking for defects in a system does not require ignoring system details, but rather paying attention to them and understanding how they affect the system’s quality, functionality, and usability. Ignoring system details could lead to missing important defects or testing irrelevant aspects of the system.

Identifying defects may be perceived as criticism against product, especially by the developers or stakeholders who are invested in the product’s success. However, identifying defects is not meant to be a personal attack, but rather a constructive feedback that helps to improve the product and ensure its alignment with the requirements and expectations of the users and clients.

Looking for defects in system requires professional pessimism and curiosity, as testers need to anticipate and explore the possible ways that the system could fail, malfunction, or behave unexpectedly. Professional pessimism means being skeptical and critical of the system’s quality and reliability, while curiosity means being eager and interested in finding out the root causes and consequences of the defects.

Testing is often seen as a destructive activity instead of constructive activity, as it involves finding and reporting the flaws and weaknesses of the system, rather than creating or enhancing it. However, testing is actually a constructive activity, as it contributes to the system’s improvement, verification, validation, and optimization, and ultimately to the delivery of a high-quality product that meets the needs and expectations of the users and clients.

This answer is correct because code-related white-box test techniques are test design techniques that use the structure of the code to derive test cases. They provide an objective measure of coverage, such as statement coverage, branch coverage, or path coverage, which indicate how much of the code has been exercised by the test cases. Code-related white-box test techniques can be used to complement black-box test techniques, which are test design techniques that use the functional or non-functional requirements of the system or component to derive test cases. By combining both types of techniques, testers can increase their confidence in the code and find more defects. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.2

Defect clustering is a testing principle that states that a small number of modules contain most of the defects detected during pre-release testing, or are responsible for most of the operational failures. Defect clustering can be explained by Pareto’s principle (also known as the 80-20 rule), which states that approximately 80% of the problems are found in 20% of the modules. Defect clustering suggests a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, as it implies that more effort should be allocated to test the modules that have shown high defect density or criticality. Pesticide paradox is another testing principle that states that if the same tests are repeated over and over again, eventually they will no longer find any new defects. Pesticide paradox suggests a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but not based on defect clustering, but rather on test diversity and coverage. Early testing is a testing principle that states that testing activities should start as early as possible in the software development life cycle and should be focused on defined objectives. Early testing does not suggest a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but rather a proactive approach to prevent defects from occurring or propagating. Absence-of-errors fallacy is a testing principle that states that finding and fixing defects does not help if the system built is unusable and does not fulfill the users’ needs and expectations. Absence-of-errors fallacy does not suggest a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but rather a focus on quality attributes and user requirements. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 1, page 9-10.

In a formal review, the roles involved typically include the author, management, facilitator (also known as moderator), review leader, reviewers, and scribe. Each role has specific responsibilities to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the review process:

The author creates and refines the work product being reviewed.

Management allocates resources and supports the review process.

The facilitator manages the review meeting, ensuring it proceeds smoothly.

The review leader plans the review and ensures it meets its objectives.

Reviewers examine the work product to identify defects.

The scribe records issues raised during the review meeting​​.

Debugging the software to find the reason for defects is not a common objective of testing, but rather a task of development or maintenance. Debugging is a process of locating and fixing errors in the software code, while testing is a process of finding and reporting defects in the software behavior or quality. Testing does not aim to fix defects, but rather to provide information on their existence and impact. The other options are common objectives of testing. Finding defects in the software is one of the main objectives of testing, as it helps to improve the quality and reliability of the software. Preventing defects is another objective of testing, as it helps to avoid rework and reduce costs and risks. Providing information on the status of the system is another objective of testing, as it helps to support decision making and risk management. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 3.

 The V-model is a software development life cycle model that defines four test levels that correspond to four development phases: component (unit) testing with component design, integration testing with architectural design, system testing with system requirements, and acceptance testing with user requirements. The V-model emphasizes the importance of verifying and validating each phase of development with a corresponding level of testing, and ensuring that the test objectives, test basis, and test artifacts are aligned and consistent across the test levels. Therefore, an organization that wants to follow the V-model cannot do away with integration testing, as it would break the symmetry and completeness of the V-model, and compromise the quality and reliability of the software or system under test. Integration testing is a test level that aims to test the interactions and interfaces between components or subsystems, and to detect any defects or inconsistencies that may arise from the integration of different parts of the software or system. Integration testing is essential for ensuring the functionality, performance, and compatibility of the software or system as a whole, and for identifying and resolving any integration issues early in the development process. Skipping integration testing would increase the risk of finding serious defects later in the test process, or worse, in the production environment, which would be more costly and difficult to fix, and could damage the reputation and credibility of the organization. Therefore, the correct answer is D.

The other options are incorrect because:

A. It is not allowed as organizations can decide on the test levels to do depending on the context of the system under test. While it is true that the choice and scope of test levels may vary depending on the context of the system under test, such as the size, complexity, criticality, and risk level of the system, the organization cannot simply ignore or skip a test level that is defined and required by the chosen software development life cycle model. The organization must follow the principles and guidelines of the software development life cycle model, and ensure that the test levels are consistent and coherent with the development phases. If the organization wants to have more flexibility and adaptability in choosing the test levels, it should consider using a different software development life cycle model, such as an agile or iterative model, that allows for more dynamic and incremental testing approaches.

B. It is not allowed because integration testing is not an important test level and can be dispensed with. This statement is false and misleading, as integration testing is a very important test level that cannot be dispensed with. Integration testing is vital for testing the interactions and interfaces between components or subsystems, and for ensuring the functionality, performance, and compatibility of the software or system as a whole. Integration testing can reveal defects or inconsistencies that may not be detected by component (unit) testing alone, such as interface errors, data flow errors, integration logic errors, or performance degradation. Integration testing can also help to verify and validate the architectural design and the integration strategy of the software or system, and to ensure that the software or system meets the specified and expected quality attributes, such as reliability, usability, security, and maintainability. Integration testing can also provide feedback and confidence to the developers and stakeholders about the progress and quality of the software or system development. Therefore, integration testing is a crucial and indispensable test level that should not be skipped or omitted.

C. It is not allowed because integration testing is a very important test level and ignoring it means definite poor product quality. This statement is partially true, as integration testing is a very important test level that should not be ignored, and skipping it could result in poor product quality. However, this statement is too strong and absolute, as it implies that integration testing is the only factor that determines the product quality, and that ignoring it would guarantee a poor product quality. This is not necessarily the case, as there may be other factors that affect the product quality, such as the quality of the requirements, design, code, and other test levels, the effectiveness and efficiency of the test techniques and tools, the competence and experience of the developers and testers, the availability and adequacy of the resources and environment, the management and communication of the project, and the expectations and satisfaction of the customers and users. Therefore, while integration testing is a very important test level that should not be skipped, it is not the only test level that matters, and skipping it does not necessarily mean definite poor product quality, but rather a higher risk and likelihood of poor product quality.

References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 4.0, 2018, Section 2.3, pages 16-18; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, pages 38-39; ISTQB CTFL 4.0 - Sample Exam - Answers, Version 1.1, 2023, Question 104, page 36.

The absence-of-errors fallacy is the mistaken belief that just because a software system is free of defects, it will meet the user's needs and expectations. Involving users early through practices like prototyping helps ensure that the development team is building the right system that meets user expectations, not just a system that is defect-free. This approach aligns with the testing principle that emphasizes understanding the users' needs and ensuring the system fulfills them. This principle is explained in the ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0​​.