CTFL2018 CTFL_Syll2018 Full Course Free

A correct reason to apply test automation is when there are a lot of repetitive testing tasks, as test automation can reduce the effort and time required to execute them, and improve the consistency and accuracy of the results. The other options are not valid reasons to apply test automation, as they do not consider the benefits and risks of test automation, the suitability of the test object for automation, or the availability of resources and skills for automation.

References: Section 6.3.1, Section 6.3.2

 According to the syllabus, dynamic analysis tools are tools that perform testing or analysis by executing the software or a part of it. Dynamic analysis tools can help detect defects or problems that only appear during runtime, such as memory leaks, performance issues, concurrency errors, etc. The answer A is correct because it suggests using a dynamic analysis tool for detecting a memory leak during performance testing. A memory leak is a situation where a code component fails to release memory after it has finished using it, causing memory exhaustion and degradation of performance. A dynamic analysis tool can monitor the memory usage of the code component and identify any memory leaks. The other answers are incorrect because they suggest using tools that are not suitable for detecting memory leaks during performance testing. A test execution tool is a tool that executes test cases automatically or semi-automatically. A configuration management tool is a tool that controls and tracks changes to the software components and documentation. A coverage measurement tool is a tool that measures how much of the code or functionality has been exercised by a test suite.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.6.1, page 53-54.

Managing the incidents in a spreadsheet posted on the intranet is the best option for a QA manager of a start-up company who needs to implement within a week a low cost incident management tool. A spreadsheet is a simple and flexible tool that can be used to record, track, and report incidents. Posting the spreadsheet on the intranet can make it accessible and visible to the relevant stakeholders. This option can be implemented quickly and cheaply, without requiring much training or maintenance3 suggests this as follows:

A spreadsheet is a common tool that can be used for incident management, especially for small or simple projects. A spreadsheet can be used to create an incident report template that includes the necessary information and fields for each incident. The spreadsheet can also be used to sort, filter, group, or analyze the incidents based on various criteria. The spreadsheet can be shared or published on a network or web location that can be accessed by the project team and other stakeholders.

A, C, and D are not good options for a QA manager of a start-up company who needs to implement within a week a low cost incident management tool. Managing the incidents through E-mails and phone calls (A) is not a good option, as it can be inefficient, unreliable, and inconsistent. E-mails and phone calls can be easily lost, overlooked, or forgotten, and they do not provide a centralized or structured way of recording, tracking, or reporting incidents. Purchasing and deploying an incident management tool © is not a good option, as it can be expensive, time-consuming, and complex. An incident management tool may require licensing fees, installation costs, configuration efforts, training sessions, and maintenance support. Documenting incidents on a large board in the lab (D) is not a good option, as it can be impractical, insecure, and incomplete. A large board in the lab may not have enough space or structure to document all the incidents in detail, and it may not be accessible or visible to all the stakeholders. A large board in the lab may also expose confidential or sensitive information to unauthorized people.

Every executable statement is covered is the statement that is guaranteed to be true if a program got 100% decision coverage in a test. Decision coverage is a structure-based testing technique that measures how many decision outcomes have been exercised by a set of test cases. A decision is a control structure that has two or more possible outcomes (e.g., if-then-else, switch-case, etc.). Decision coverage requires that each decision outcome is executed at least once by a test case. If a program got 100% decision coverage in a test, it means that every possible outcome of every decision in the code has been covered by at least one test case. This also implies that every executable statement in the code has been covered by at least one test case, since every statement belongs to some decision outcome2 explains decision coverage as follows:

Decision Coverage (also known as Branch Coverage) is a white box testing technique which measures how many decision outcomes have been tested by a set of test cases.

A decision is any control structure where there are two or more possible paths through it (e.g., if-then-else statements, switch-case statements, etc.). Each path through such control structures represents an outcome.

Decision Coverage requires that each outcome from each decision point be executed at least once by one or more test cases.

Decision Coverage can be calculated as follows:

Decision Coverage = (Number of Decision Outcomes Executed / Total Number of Decision Outcomes) * 100%

If Decision Coverage is 100%, it means that every possible outcome from every decision point has been tested by at least one test case. This also means that every executable statement has been tested by at least one test case.

A, B, and C are incorrect answers. Every output equivalence class has been tested (A), every input equivalence class has been tested (B), and the “dead” code has not been covered © are statements that are not guaranteed to be true if a program got 100% decision coverage in a test. Equivalence classes are groups of inputs or outputs that are expected to produce similar results or behavior from the system under test. Equivalence partitioning is a specification-based testing technique that uses equivalence classes to design test cases. Decision coverage is a structure-based testing technique that does not consider equivalence classes, but only the outcomes of the decisions in the code. Therefore, achieving 100% decision coverage does not ensure that every output or input equivalence class has been tested. Dead code is code that can never be executed, regardless of the input values or conditions. Dead code can be caused by logic errors, redundant statements, unreachable branches, etc. Decision coverage does not detect or cover dead code, since it only considers the outcomes of the decisions that can be executed. Therefore, achieving 100% decision coverage does not imply that the dead code has not been covered.