Pass ISTQB-CTFL Exam Guide

Involving testers only during the testing phase is incorrect as per the ISTQB CTFL syllabus. Effective involvement of testers is crucial throughout the entire software development lifecycle (SDLC). This includes early stages such as requirement analysis and design, which allows testers to understand the design decisions and detect defects early. Early involvement helps in better understanding the project and ensures that quality is built into the product from the beginning. Furthermore, the ISTQB syllabus emphasizes the importance of testers contributing to all activities in the SDLC, including design discussions, to enhance defect detection and prevention.

The minimum number of test cases needed to cover the full decision table associated with this scenario is 6. This is because the decision table has 4 conditions (type of customer and amount of sale) and 4 actions (bonus percentage). The conditions have 2 possible values each (Basic or Premium, and G1, G2 or G3), so the total number of combinations is 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16. However, not all combinations are valid, as some of them are contradictory or impossible. For example, a sale cannot be both less than 300 euros and greater than 2000 euros at the same time. Therefore, we need to eliminate the invalid combinations and keep only the valid ones. The valid combinations are:

Type of customer

Amount of sale

Bonus percentage

Basic

G1

3%

Basic

G2

5%

Basic

G3

7%

Premium

G1

5%

Premium

G2

7%

Premium

G3

10%

These 6 combinations cover all the possible values of the conditions and actions, and they are the minimum number of test cases needed to cover the full decision table.

 The thought process of the software company is incorrect, because it assumes that each artifact can be reviewed using only one review method, and that the review method depends solely on the criticality of the artifact. This is a simplistic and rigid approach that does not consider the benefits and limitations of different review methods, the context and purpose of the review, and the feedback and improvement opportunities that can be gained from multiple reviews. According to the CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, the selection of review methods should be based on several factors, such as the type and level of detail of the artifact, the availability and competence of the reviewers, the time and budget constraints, the expected defects and risks, and the desired outcomes and quality criteria. Moreover, the same artifact can be reviewed using different review methods at different stages of the development lifecycle, to ensure that the artifact meets the changing requirements, standards, and expectations of the stakeholders. For example, a requirement specification can be reviewed using an informal review method, such as a walkthrough, to get an initial feedback from the users and developers, and then using a formal review method, such as an inspection, to verify the completeness, correctness, and consistency of the specification. Therefore, the software company should adopt a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to selecting and applying review methods for different artifacts, rather than following a fixed and arbitrary rule. References = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 3.2.1, page 31-32; Section 3.2.2, page 33-34; Section 3.2.3, page 35-36.