Free and Premium iSQI CTFL_Syll_4.0 Dumps Questions Answers

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

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​​.

In Agile estimation sessions, particularly during Planning Poker, the goal is to reach a consensus on the effort required for a user story. The process encourages discussion and collaboration among team members to understand the story's requirements and complexities fully. Here’s a breakdown of the options and why D is the correct choice:

Option A: Calculating the arithmetic mean of all estimates.

This method is straightforward but does not facilitate team discussion or consensus-building. It merely averages out the estimates without addressing the reasons behind the varying estimates. Thus, important insights and understanding of the task complexity might be missed.

Option B: Selecting the most frequent estimate value.

While this approach acknowledges the majority’s opinion, it ignores the minority views, which might highlight significant aspects of the story that need consideration. It doesn't ensure that all perspectives are considered and discussed.

Option C: Calculating the mean of the most optimistic and pessimistic estimates.

This approach considers the extremes but again lacks the team discussion and consensus aspect. It also assumes that the extreme values alone can balance out the estimate, which might not always capture the true complexity or simplicity of the task.

Option D: Discussing the most pessimistic and optimistic estimates.

This approach fosters team collaboration and understanding. Memb4 and Memb6 explain their reasoning for the highest and lowest estimates, respectively, which can reveal different perspectives on the task's complexity. This discussion helps the team align their understanding and often leads to a more accurate and agreed-upon estimate in subsequent rounds.

In conclusion, the main goal of Agile estimation techniques like Planning Poker is to encourage team communication and collaboration to ensure that all aspects of the user story are considered. Option D best aligns with this goal by promoting discussion and consensus.

During the review planning phase of a formal review process, decisions are made regarding which standards and procedures will be followed. This planning ensures that the review process is structured, consistent, and aligned with organizational or project-specific guidelines, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and reliability of the review outcomes.

The tool described in the question supports the automated creation and installation of builds and the execution of various types of automated tests. This aligns with the practices and tools typically found in DevOps environments, which aim to integrate and automate the processes between software development and IT teams. DevOps tools facilitate continuous integration (CI) and continuous delivery (CD), enabling automated building, testing, and deployment of applications. Therefore, the correct answer is that this is an example of DevOps related tools​​.

Confirmation testing is performed after a defect is fixed, and if such testing is successful then the regression tests that are relevant for such fix can be executed. Confirmation testing, also known as re-testing, is the process of verifying that a defect has been resolved by running the test case that originally detected the defect. Confirmation testing is usually done before regression testing, which is the process of verifying that no new defects have been introduced in the software as a result of changes or fixes. Therefore, option D is the correct answer.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 2.4.1, page 28; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 15.

Good testing practices that apply to all software development lifecycles include having specific test objectives for each test level that align with the phase of the software development lifecycle and the type of activities being addressed. This approach ensures that testing activities are relevant and appropriate for the specific stage of development, enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the testing process.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 2.1.2, page 24: Software Development Lifecycle and Good Testing Practices​

White-box testing involves testing the internal structures or workings of an application, as opposed to the functionality exposed to the end user. Experience-based testing, such as exploratory testing, involves testers using their knowledge, experience, and intuition to test the system without predefined test cases, often focusing on the input-output behavior of the system.

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.

Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) are both essential aspects of a comprehensive quality management system but they serve different purposes:

Quality Assurance (QA): QA is a process-oriented approach that focuses on preventing defects by improving the processes used to develop and test products. It involves setting up processes, methodologies, and standards to ensure that the product meets quality requirements​​.

Quality Control (QC): QC is a product-oriented approach that focuses on identifying defects in the final products. It involves activities such as inspection, testing, and review to ensure that the product meets the specified requirements and standards​​.

Thus, the main difference is that QA is process-oriented and preventive, while QC is product-oriented and corrective.

Boundary value analysis involves testing at the boundaries between partitions. The most efficient boundary values to test are those at the edge of the input ranges:

Just below the minimum value (9)

At the minimum value (10)

Just above the minimum value (11)

Just below the maximum value (4999)

At the maximum value (5000)

Just above the maximum value (5001)

Testing these values ensures that the program handles the boundaries correctly, covering both valid and invalid input scenarios​​.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

This answer is correct because in Agile software development, work product documentation, such as user stories, acceptance criteria, or test cases, tends to be lightweight and concise, as the focus is on working software and frequent communication rather than comprehensive documentation. Manual tests tend to be often unscripted, as they are often produced using experience-based test techniques, such as error guessing or exploratory testing, which rely on the tester’s skills, knowledge, and creativity to find defects and provide feedback. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.2, Section 3.2.1.2

During the review planning phase of a formal review process, decisions are made regarding which standards and procedures will be followed. This planning ensures that the review process is structured, consistent, and aligned with organizational or project-specific guidelines, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and reliability of the review outcomes.

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​​.

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.

A new navigation system compared with a previous system is the most suitable application for testing by use cases, because it involves a high level of interaction between the user and the system, and the expected behavior and outcomes of the system are based on the user’s needs and goals. Use cases can help to specify the functional requirements of the new navigation system, such as the ability to enter a destination, select a route, follow the directions, receive alerts, etc. Use cases can also help to compare the accuracy and usability of the new system with the previous system, by defining the success and failure scenarios, the preconditions and postconditions, and the alternative flows of each use case. Use cases can also help to design and execute test cases that cover the main and exceptional paths of each use case, and to verify the satisfaction of the user’s expectations.

The other options are not the most suitable applications for testing by use cases, because they do not involve a high level of interaction between the user and the system, or the expected behavior and outcomes of the system are not based on the user’s needs and goals. A billing system used to calculate monthly charge based on a large number of subscriber parameters is more suitable for testing by data-driven testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and performance of a system or component by using a large set of input and output data. The ability of an antivirus package to detect and quarantine a new threat is more suitable for testing by exploratory testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and security of a system or component by using an informal and flexible approach, based on the tester’s experience and intuition. The suitability and performance of a multimedia (audio video based) system to a new operating system is more suitable for testing by compatibility testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and performance of a system or component by using different hardware, software, or network environments. References = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 3.1.1, page 28-29; Section 4.1.1, page 44-45; Section 4.2.1, page 47-48.

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

This answer is correct because a typical objective of testing is to ensure that a software has been tested using a combination of test techniques, such as black-box, white-box, or experience-based techniques, that are appropriate for the test objectives, test levels, and test types. Testing using a combination of test techniques can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of testing, as different techniques can target different aspects of the software quality, such as functionality, usability, performance, security, reliability, etc. Testing using a combination of test techniques can also reduce the risk of missing defects that could be detected by one technique but not by another. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.1.1, Section 2.3.2

Risk register is a test planning work product as it documents identified risks and their mitigation strategies.

Risk information falls under test monitoring and control work products as it involves ongoing evaluation and reporting of risks.

Test cases are part of test design work products as they are derived from test conditions and designed to execute the testing scenarios.

Test conditions belong to test analysis work products as they define the items or events of a system that are to be tested​​.

 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

This answer is correct because Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) is a test-first approach, where tests that express a shared understanding from stakeholders of how the application is expected to work, are first written in business-readable language (following the Given/When/Then format), and then made executable to drive development. BDD is a collaborative approach that involves testers, developers, business analysts, product owners, and other stakeholders in defining the expected behavior of the application using scenarios that describe the preconditions, actions, and outcomes of the application. BDD scenarios are written using a domain-specific language (DSL) that can be translated into executable test cases using tools such as Cucumber or SpecFlow. BDD aims to improve communication, collaboration, and feedback among the team members, and to deliver software that meets the customer’s needs and expectations. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.4

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.

In an agile software development environment with distributed teams, effective communication is crucial. Given the distributed nature and the time zone differences, asynchronous communication methods such as emails are more practical and effective. They ensure that information can be shared and accessed by team members and stakeholders at their convenience, regardless of time zone differences. Regular email updates also provide a documented trail of communication, which can be reviewed and referred back to as needed. Formal face-to-face meetings can be challenging to coordinate across time zones and are not as flexible as email communications​​.

In the context of software testing roles, tasks typically performed by someone in a testing role include evaluating the test basis and test object, creating test completion reports, and assessing the testability of the test object. These tasks are directly related to ensuring the quality and effectiveness of the software testing process.

Evaluate test basis and test object: This involves reviewing and analyzing the documents and artifacts that are used as the basis for testing. This is a fundamental task for testers to understand what needs to be tested and to ensure that the test objects are adequately covered by the test cases​​.

Create test completion report: This is part of the test closure activities. Testers are responsible for summarizing the testing activities, outcomes, and lessons learned, which are compiled into a test completion report. This report is crucial for stakeholders to understand the test results and make informed decisions​​.

Assess testability of test object: This task involves evaluating how easily a test object (such as a piece of software) can be tested. This includes considering aspects such as the availability of test data, the ability to isolate the object for testing, and the clarity of the requirements. Testers often perform this assessment to identify potential challenges and mitigate them before testing begins​​.

On the other hand:

Define test environment requirements: While testers may provide input on the test environment, the primary responsibility for defining and setting up the test environment usually falls to roles such as system administrators or infrastructure specialists. They ensure that the necessary hardware, software, and network configurations are in place for testing to proceed. This task is less likely to be the sole responsibility of a tester​​.

 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.

Exploratory testing is an experience-based test technique in which testers dynamically design and execute tests based on their knowledge, intuition, and learning of the software system, without following predefined test scripts or test cases. Exploratory testing can be conducted following a session-based approach, which is a structured way of managing and measuring exploratory testing. In a session-based approach, the testers perform uninterrupted test sessions, usually lasting between 60 and 120 minutes, with a specific charter or goal, and document the issues detected, the test coverage achieved, and the time spent in session sheets. Session sheets are records of the test activities, results, and observations during a test session, which can be used for reporting, debriefing, and learning purposes. The other statements are false, because:

Exploratory testing is not a test technique in which testers explore the requirements specification to detect non testable requirements, but rather a test technique in which testers explore the software system to detect functional and non-functional defects, as well as to learn new information, risks, or opportunities. Non testable requirements are requirements that are ambiguous, incomplete, inconsistent, or not verifiable, which can affect the quality and effectiveness of the testing process. Non testable requirements can be detected by applying static testing techniques, such as reviews or inspections, to the requirements specification, before the software system is developed or tested.

Exploratory testing is not a test technique used by testers during informal code reviews to find defects by exploring the source code, but rather a test technique used by testers during dynamic testing to find defects by exploring the behavior and performance of the software system, without examining the source code. Informal code reviews are static testing techniques, in which the source code is analyzed by one or more reviewers, without following a formal process or using a checklist, to identify defects, violations, or improvements. Informal code reviews are usually performed by developers or peers, not by testers.

In exploratory testing, testers usually do not produce scripted tests and establish bidirectional traceability between these tests and the items of the test basis, but rather produce unscripted tests and adapt them based on the feedback and the findings of the testing process. Scripted tests are tests that are designed and documented in advance, with predefined inputs, outputs, and expected results, and are executed according to a test plan or a test procedure. Bidirectional traceability is the ability to trace both forward and backward the relationships between the items of the test basis, such as the requirements, the design, the risks, etc., and the test artifacts, such as the test cases, the test results, the defects, etc. Scripted tests and bidirectional traceability are usually associated with more formal and structured testing approaches, such as specification-based or structure-based test techniques, not with exploratory testing. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.3, Experience-based Test Design Techniques1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Exploratory Testing, Session-based Testing, Session Sheet, Non Testable Requirement, Static Testing, Informal Review, Dynamic Testing, Scripted Testing, Bidirectional Traceability2

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.

Traceability is the ability to trace the relationships between the items of the test basis, such as the requirements, the design, the risks, etc., and the test artifacts, such as the test cases, the test results, the defects, etc. Traceability can provide various benefits for the testing process, such as improving the test coverage, the test quality, the test efficiency, and the test communication. However, not all the statements given are true about the value of maintaining traceability between the test basis and test work products. The statement that is not true is option C, which says that test objectives should be the same for all test levels, although the number of tests designed at various levels can vary significantly. This statement is false, because 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. Test objectives should not be the same for all test levels, as different test levels have different focuses, scopes, and perspectives of testing, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing. The other statements are true about the value of maintaining traceability between the test basis and test work products, such as:

Traceability can be useful for assessing the impact of a change to a test basis item on the corresponding tests: This statement is true, because traceability can help to identify which tests are affected by a change in the test basis, such as a new requirement, a modified design, a revised risk, etc., and to determine the necessary actions to update, re-execute, or re-evaluate the tests. Traceability can also help to estimate the effort, the cost, and the time needed to implement the change and to verify its impact on the software system.

Traceability can be useful for determining how many test basis items are covered by the corresponding tests: This statement is true, because traceability can help to measure the test coverage, which is the degree to which the test basis is exercised by the test cases. Traceability can help to identify which test basis items are covered, partially covered, or not covered by the tests, and to evaluate the adequacy, the completeness, and the effectiveness of the testing process. Traceability can also help to identify the gaps, the overlaps, or the redundancies in the test coverage, and to prioritize, optimize, or improve the test cases.

Traceability can be useful to support the needs required by the auditing of testing: This statement is true, because traceability can help to provide evidence, documentation, and justification for the testing activities, results, and outcomes. Traceability can help to demonstrate that the testing process follows the standards, the regulations, the policies, and the best practices that are applicable to the software system, the project, or the organization. Traceability can also help to verify that the testing process meets the expectations, the needs, and the satisfaction of the users and the stakeholders. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

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 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® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Traceability, Test Basis, Test Artifact, Test Objective, Test Level, Test Coverage, Test Quality, Test Risk, Test Cost, Test Time2

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​​.

This answer is correct because the whole-team approach is a way of working in agile projects where all team members share the responsibility for the quality of the product, and collaborate on delivering value to the customer. The whole-team approach involves testers, developers, business analysts, product owners, and other stakeholders in planning, designing, developing, testing, and delivering the product. The whole-team approach fosters communication, feedback, learning, and continuous improvement within the team. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.1

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.

One of the typical potential risks associated with using test automation tools is the underestimation of the effort required to maintain test scripts. While test automation can reduce test execution times and provide more consistent and repeatable tests compared to manual testing, maintaining test scripts can be labor-intensive and often requires significant effort. Changes in the application under test can lead to frequent updates in the test scripts to keep them functional and relevant.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 6.2 on the benefits and risks of test automation tools

The syllabus outlines that while automation can improve efficiency, it also introduces maintenance challenges​​.

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​​.

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.

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

Test exit criteria are the conditions that must be fulfilled before concluding a particular testing phase. These criteria act as a checkpoint to assess whether we have achieved the testing objectives and are done with testing1. Test exit criteria are typically defined in the test plan document, which is one of the outputs of the test planning phase. The test plan document describes the scope, approach, resources, and schedule of the testing activities. It also identifies the test items, the features to be tested, the testing tasks, the risks, and the test deliverables2. According to the ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, the test plan document should include the following information related to the test exit criteria3:

The criteria for evaluating test completion, such as the percentage of test cases executed, the percentage of test coverage achieved, the number and severity of defects found and fixed, the quality and reliability of the software product, and the stakeholder satisfaction.

The criteria for evaluating test process improvement, such as the adherence to the test strategy, the efficiency and effectiveness of the testing activities, the lessons learned and best practices identified, and the recommendations for future improvements.

Therefore, the test plan document is the most appropriate test document to find the test exit criteria described. The other options, such as test design specification, project plan, and requirements specification, are not directly related to the test exit criteria. The test design specification describes the test cases and test procedures for a specific test level or test type3. The project plan describes the overall objectives, scope, assumptions, risks, and deliverables of the software project4. The requirements specification describes the functional and non-functional requirements of the software product5. None of these documents specify the conditions for ending the testing process or evaluating the testing outcomes. References = ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Entry and Exit Criteria in Software Testing | Baeldung on Computer Science, Entry And Exit Criteria In Software Testing - Rishabh Software, Entry and Exit Criteria in Software Testing Life Cycle - STLC [2022 Updated] - Testsigma Blog, ISTQB® releases Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0 (CTFL).

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

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

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​​.

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​​.

Debugging activities typically include reproducing the failure, diagnosing the root cause, and fixing the cause of the failure. Adding new test cases, while important in the overall testing process, is not a direct part of debugging. Debugging focuses on understanding and correcting the issue that caused the failure, rather than expanding the test suite.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.5 on debugging activities, which lists reproducing the failure, diagnosing the root cause, and fixing the cause as core activities​​.

Selecting a tester with the required knowledge related to compliance and standards is a correct mitigation option, especially in a highly regulated domain like healthcare. This approach ensures that the tester understands the specific regulatory requirements and standards applicable to the software, thereby reducing the risk of non-compliance. This is more effective than just increasing the number of testers, as it directly addresses the knowledge and expertise needed to mitigate specific product risks​​.

The question is about selecting the correct test values for x based on equivalence partitioning. Equivalence partitioning is a software test design technique that divides the input data of a software unit into partitions of equivalent data from which test cases can be derived. In this case, the given equivalence classes are:

(x \leq -100)

(-100 < x < 100)

(100 \leq x < 1000)

(x \geq 1000)

Option D provides a value from each of these partitions:

For (x \leq -100), it gives -1000.

For (-100 < x < 100), it gives -100 and 100.

For (100 \leq x < 1000), it gives 500.

For (x \geq 1000), it gives 1500.

So, option D covers all four given equivalence classes with appropriate values.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 documents available at ISTQB and ASTQB.

1: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 38

2: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 39

: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 40

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