ISTQB-CTFL VCE Exam Download

Statement coverage measures the percentage of executable statements that have been exercised by a test suite. Achieving 80% statement coverage means that 80% of the executable code lines have been tested. This metric helps in understanding how much of the code has been covered during testing. However, it does not guarantee branch coverage, variable initialization, or detection of all possible defects. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 explains statement coverage as a measure of the extent to which the code has been tested, without implying other types of coverage or testing goals​​.

Product risk involves the potential issues that can affect the quality and functionality of the software product, such as defects, performance problems, and usability issues. Project risk, on the other hand, relates to the risks that can impact the project's schedule, budget, and resources, such as delays, cost overruns, and resource constraints. Understanding both types of risks is crucial for managing and mitigating potential problems in software projects.

References:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 5.2.1, "Risk Management in Testing."

A static analysis tool is a tool that analyzes a given program’s source code or executable code without executing it. A static analysis tool can perform various types of analysis on a program’s code, such as syntax checking, data flow analysis, control flow analysis, complexity measurement, coding standards compliance checking, etc. Control flow analysis is a type of analysis that examines how a program’s statements are executed in different paths or branches. One of the most likely outcomes of control flow analysis is identification of unreachable code, which is code that can never be executed due to logical errors or design flaws. Unreachable code can reduce readability and maintainability of the code, as well as increase complexity and size. The other options are not outcomes of control flow analysis, but rather outcomes of other types of analysis. Report on adherence to coding standards is an outcome of coding standards compliance checking. Number of comment lines and number of source code lines are outcomes of complexity measurement. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 8.

Statements I, IV and V are valid testing principles according to the ISTQB syllabus. Statement I states that exhaustive testing is in general impossible, because it would require testing all possible inputs, outputs and combinations of states, which is usually impractical or impossible. Statement IV states that testing cannot guarantee that a program is correct, because testing can only show the presence of defects, not their absence. Statement V states that defects cluster together in certain areas of the product, which means that some modules or functions are more likely to contain defects than others. Statements II and III are invalid testing principles. Statement II states that exhaustive testing should be executed for code intended to be reused, which contradicts statement I. Statement III states that testing may guarantee that a program is correct, which contradicts statement IV. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, pages 4-5.