CTFL-AT Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Question and Answers

Continuous integration is a practice of integrating code changes frequently and automatically into a shared repository, and running automated tests to verify the integration. Continuous integration can introduce some risks to the testing process, such as:

• Testers sometimes have too many builds to test, which reduces the quality of testing. This can happen when the code changes are too frequent or too large, and the testers do not have enough time or resources to test each build thoroughly. This can lead to missed defects, incomplete test coverage, and reduced confidence in the product quality.
• Testers sometimes have to deal with unstable or broken builds, which affects the testability of the product. This can happen when the code changes introduce errors or conflicts that cause the build to fail or malfunction. This can waste the testers’ time and effort, and delay the feedback cycle.
• Testers sometimes have to cope with changing requirements and priorities, which affects the test planning and execution. This can happen when the stakeholders or customers provide new or modified requirements or feedback during the development cycle. This can require the testers to adapt their test strategy, test cases, and test data accordingly, and to balance the testing of new features and regression testing of existing features. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.2.3, page 14; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, page 15.

According to the ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, a retrospective is a meeting held at the end of each iteration or release, where the agile team reflects on what went well and what can be improved in their processes, practices, and interactions. The purpose of a retrospective is to identify and implement actions for continuous improvement, and to foster a culture of learning and collaboration. Therefore, the items that would be the most effective to generate discussions on process improvement are those that are related to the team’s performance, challenges, feedback, and suggestions. Option D is the least effective item to generate discussions on process improvement, as it is a personal attack on one of the team members, and it does not offer any constructive feedback or solution. This kind of item can create a negative and hostile atmosphere in the retrospective, and damage the trust and respect among the team members. Option A is an effective item to generate discussions on processimprovement, as it identifies a problem with the build process that affects the team’s efficiency and quality, and it can lead to finding ways to optimize the build process or to mitigate the delays. Option B is also an effective item to generate discussions on process improvement, as it reveals a discrepancy between the team’s estimation and actual effort, and it can lead to analyzing the root causes of the deviation and to improving the estimation techniques or the team’s capacity. Option C is also an effective item to generate discussions on process improvement, as it highlights a weakness in the automation tests that hinders the team’s ability to debug and fix the failures, and it can lead to enhancing the automation tests with better logging mechanisms or to reviewing the automation strategy. References: ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.1.1, page 14; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.1.2, page 15; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.1, page 16; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.2, page 17.

Cross-functional teamwork is an important organizational and behavioral best practice for a tester in the SCRUM team that should have also been practiced when using the sequential model. Cross-functional teamwork means that all team members, regardless of their functional roles, collaborate and share their skills and knowledge to achieve a common goal. In the context of testing, this means that testing is not seen as a separate activity or phase, but as an integral part of the development process. All team members contribute to testing in various ways, such as:

• Involving people with the test strategy, test planning and execution as well as test reporting. This can help ensure that the testing activities are aligned with the business objectives, the user needs, and the technical requirements. It can also help improve the test coverage, the test quality, and the test efficiency.
• Sharing the responsibility for testing among the team members. This can help reduce the workload and the dependency on a single tester or a testing team. It can also help increase the feedback and the communication among the team members, and foster a culture of quality and learning.
• Leveraging the diverse skills and perspectives of the team members. This can help enhance the test design and the test execution by applying different techniques, tools, and approaches. It can also help identify and address the risks, the issues, and the opportunities for improvement from various angles. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 1.2.1, page 9; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, page 16.

 According to the ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, one of the key principles of agile testing is that testers are integrated into the agile team and work closely with developers and other stakeholders. However, this does not mean that testers lose their independence or objectivity. Testers should still be able to provide an unbiased view of the quality of the software and challenge the assumptions and decisions made by the team. Therefore, option C is the best way for a test team to keep its independence when working in an agile development environment, as it allows testers to be part of the agile team, but also report to a different manager than the developers, who can support their professional development and ensure their independence. Option A is not a good way to keep independence, as it limits the transparency and collaboration between testers and developers, which are essential for agile testing. Option B is also not a good way to keep independence, as it creates a physical and organizational barrier between the test automation team and the agile development team, which can hinder communication and feedback. Option D is also not a good way to keep independence, as it creates an inconsistency and imbalance between the testers who are co-located with the agile development team and those who are not, which can affect the quality and efficiency of the testing process. References: ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 1.2.1, page 91; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 1.2.2, page 101; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.1.1, page 141; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.1, page 161; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.2, page 171.

 Equivalence partitioning is a black-box test design technique that divides the input domain of a system into classes of data from which test cases can be derived. The idea is that if a system works correctly for a representative value from an equivalence class, it will work correctly for all values from that class, and vice versa. Equivalence partitioning reduces the number of test cases by eliminating redundant ones. For the given user story, equivalence partitioning is the most suitable technique because it can test the different outcomes of the annual car tax calculation based on the power of the vehicle, which is the main input for the system. By testing one value from each partition, the tester can verify the functionality of the system and detect any errors in the calculation logic. The other techniques are not as suitable because they do not focus on the inputdomain of the system, but rather on the conditions, transitions, or scenarios that are not directly related to the user story. References:

• : ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.2.2
• : ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Agile Testing Foundations, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2
• : 3

Regression of software is the risk that a change in one part of the software causes a defect in another part of the software that was previously working correctly. Regression of software is a high risk in agile projects because there is code churn due to change in business needs over several sprints. Code churn is the amount of code that is added, modified, or deleted in a software project over time. Code churn can indicate the volatility and complexity of the software, and the frequency and magnitude of the changes. In agile projects, code churn can be high because the business needs and the user requirements can change rapidly and frequently over several sprints, which are short iterations of development and testing. This means that the software is constantly evolving and adapting to the changing needs, and that the existing functionality and quality may be affected by the new or modified code. Therefore, regression of software is a high risk in agile projects, and it requires effective testing strategies and techniques to prevent, detect, and fix the regression defects. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.3.2, page 17; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, pages 36 and 55

A testable acceptance criterion is a condition that can be verified or measured objectively by the tester, customer, or stakeholder. It should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). A testable acceptance criterion should also be written from the user’s perspective, achievable within the sprint, and written before development begins1.

Among the four options, only option C meets these criteria. It is specific (the response time to confirm a customer submission), measurable (must not exceed 5 seconds), achievable (within the technical and business constraints), relevant (to the user’s needs and expectations), and time-bound (must be met in every sprint). It is also written from the user’s perspective, testable (by measuring the response time), and written before development (as part of the user story definition).

Option A is not testable because it is vague and subjective. What does it mean to support business processes? How can this be verified or measured? Option B is also not testable because it is subjective and ambiguous. What does it mean to be easy to use? How can this be verified or measured? Option D is not testable because it is not written from the user’s perspective. It is an internal quality criterion for the testing team, not an acceptance criterion for the product or feature.

References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Section 2.3.2, page 182; ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Sample Exam Questions, Question 2.3.2-2, page 93

Exploratory testing is a testing approach that emphasizes learning, creativity, and adaptability. It involves simultaneous test design and test execution, where the tester uses heuristics, intuition, and experience to explore the system under test and discover new information12. Exploratory testing can be performed in an Agile project to complement other testing activities, such as test-driven development, behavior-driven development, and acceptance test-driven development12.

The correct approach to adopt for exploratory testing in an Agile project is D, as it follows the best practices for exploratory testing1234:

• Ask experienced testers to prepare test charters for time boxed sessions lasting no more than 2 hours: A test charter is a brief document that describes the scope, objective, and strategy of an exploratory testing session. A test charter helps to guide the tester’s exploration and to document the results. A time box is a fixed period of time allocated for an exploratory testing session. A time box helps to focus the tester’s attention and to limit the scope of exploration. A time box should not be too long, as it may reduce the tester’s concentration and creativity. A recommended duration for a time box is between 45 minutes and 2 hours.
• Tests should be designed and executed within each session using heuristics, creativity and intuition: Exploratory testing is an iterative and interactive process, where the tester designs and executes tests based on the observations and feedback from the system under test. The tester uses heuristics, which are rules of thumb or shortcuts that help to simplify the testing problem and to generate test ideas. The tester also uses creativity and intuition, which are mental abilities that help to generate novel and useful solutions and to make judgments based on incomplete or uncertain information.

The incorrect approaches to adopt for exploratory testing in an Agile project are A, B, and C, as they violate the principles and practices of exploratory testing1234:

• A: Allocate independent testers to design exploratory tests using test charters in time boxed sessions. Plan to run all sessions in parallel with each session lasting more than 5 hours: This approach is incorrect because it does not involve simultaneous test design and test execution, which is the essence of exploratory testing. It also uses too long time boxes, which may reduce the tester’s concentration and creativity. It also does not leverage the collaboration and communication within the Agile team, as it isolates the testers from the developers and other stakeholders.
• B: Ask experienced testers to try and find new defects by using the system without the constraint of documentation and tools: This approach is incorrect because it does not use test charters, which are essential for guiding and documenting the exploratory testing sessions. It also does not use heuristics, creativity, and intuition, which are important for generating test ideas and making decisions. It also implies that exploratory testing is an unstructured and random activity, which is a common misconception. Exploratory testing is a disciplined and systematic approach that requires planning, analysis, and evaluation.
• C: Use testers who have not been involved in the sprint to write new test cases from the user stories. These test cases are then executed in a time boxed session for the sprint: This approach is incorrect because it does not involve simultaneous test design and test execution, which is the essence of exploratory testing. It also uses testers who have not been involved in the sprint, which may reduce their understanding of the system under test and the customer needs. It also does not use test charters, which are essential for guiding and documenting the exploratory testing sessions. It also does not use heuristics, creativity, and intuition, which are important for generating test ideas and making decisions.

References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus1, page 23; ISTQB Agile Tester Sample Exam2, question 19; Exploratory Testing; ISTQB Agile Tester #56 – What is Exploratory testing?

 Agile software development is a term that encompasses a group of software development methodologies that are based on iterative incremental development, where requirements and solutions evolve through collaboration between self-organizing cross-functional teams. Agile methods promote adaptive planning, evolutionary development and delivery, a time-boxed iterative approach, and encourage rapid and flexible response to change. Some examples of agile methods are Scrum, Extreme Programming (XP), Kanban, and Lean Software Development. References:

• : ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 1.1.1
• : ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Agile Testing Foundations, Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1