CTFL_Syll_4.0 ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Question and Answers

Branch testingis a structural testing technique that ensures eachbranch (decision point)in the control flow is executed at least once. The goal is to measurebranch coverage, which is the number of branches exercised divided by the total number of branches.

(A) describes statement testing, not branch testing.

(B) and (D) introduce confusion between decisions and statements, whereas branch testing focuses on control flow branches.

In simple terms,branch testing checks that all possible decision outcomes (true/false) are executed, whereas statement testing only ensures that each line of code is executed.

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.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents,

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

A test task that usually occurs during test implementation is to make sure the planned test environment is ready to be delivered. The test environment is the hardware and software configuration on which the tests are executed, and it should be as close as possible to the production environment where the software system will operate. The test environment should be planned, prepared, and verified before the test execution, to ensure that the test conditions, the test data, the test tools, and the test interfaces areavailable and functional. The other options are not test tasks that usually occur during test implementation, but rather test tasks that occur during other test activities, such as:

Find, analyze, and remove the causes of the failures highlighted by the tests: This is a test task that usually occurs during test analysis and design, which is the activity of analyzing the test basis, designing the test cases, and identifying the test data. During this activity, the testers can use techniques such as root cause analysis, defect prevention, or defect analysis, to find, analyze, and remove the causes of the failures highlighted by the previous tests, and to prevent or reduce the occurrence of similar failures in the future tests.

Archive the testware for use in future test projects: This is a test task that usually occurs during test closure, which is the activity of finalizing and reporting the test results, evaluating the test process, and identifying the test improvement actions. During this activity, the testers can archive the testware, which are the test artifacts produced during the testing process, such as the test plan, the test cases, the test data, the test results, the defect reports, etc., for use in future test projects, such as regression testing, maintenance testing, or reuse testing.

Gather the metrics that are used to guide the test project: This is a test task that usually occurs during test monitoring and control, which is the activity of tracking and reviewing the test progress, status, and quality, and taking corrective actions when necessary. During this activity, the testers can gather the metrics, which are the measurements of the testing process, such as the test coverage, the defect density, the test effort, the test duration, etc., that are used to guide the test project, such as planning, estimating, scheduling, reporting, or improving the testing process. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

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® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.4, Test Implementation1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.5, Test Execution1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.6, Test Closure1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test Environment, Test Condition, Test Data, Test Tool, Test Interface, Failure, Root Cause Analysis, Defect Prevention, Defect Analysis, Testware, Regression Testing, Maintenance Testing, Reuse Testing, Test Coverage, Defect Density, Test Effort, Test Duration2

Performing static testing on a commercially available executable library can raise legal issues, primarily related to the ownership and licensing of the software. These libraries are often proprietary, and analyzing them without permission may violate software licenses or intellectual property laws. Static testing typically involves analyzing source code, which may not be accessible for such libraries without appropriate permissions.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 3.2.2 on legal and ethical considerations in static testing​​.

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.

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 basisitems 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

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​​.

The support offered by a performance testing tool is often leveraged by testers to run load tests, which are tests that simulate a large number of concurrent users or transactions on the system under test, in order to measure its performance, reliability, and scalability. Performance testing tools can help testers to generate realistic workloads, monitor system behavior, collect and analyze performance metrics, and identify performance bottlenecks. The other statements are false, because:

A test data preparation tool is a tool that helps testers to create, manage, and manipulate test data, which are the inputs and outputs of test cases. Test data preparation tools are not directly related to running automated regression test suites, which are test suites that verify that the system still works as expected after changes or modifications. Regression test suites are usually executed by test execution tools, which are tools that can automatically run test cases and compare actual results with expected results.

A bug prediction tool is a tool that uses machine learning or statistical techniques to predict the likelihood of defects in a software system, based on various factors such as code complexity, code churn, code coverage, code smells, etc. Bug prediction tools are not used by testers to track the bugs they found, which are the actual defects that have been detected and reported duringtesting. Bugs are usually tracked by defect management tools, which are tools that help testers to record, monitor, analyze, and resolve defects.

A continuous integration tool is a tool that enables the integration of code changes from multiple developers into a shared repository, and the execution of automated builds and tests, in order to ensure the quality and consistency of the software system. Continuous integration tools are not used by testers to automatically generate test cases from a model, which are test cases that are derived from a representation of the system under test, such as a state diagram, a decision table, a use case, etc. Test cases can be automatically generated by test design tools, which are tools that support the implementation and maintenance of test cases, based on test design specifications or test models. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.4.1, Types of Test Tools

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Performance Testing Tool, Test Data Preparation Tool, Bug Prediction Tool, Continuous Integration Tool, Test Execution Tool, Defect Management Tool, Test Design Tool

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

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

A pilot project is a small-scale experiment or trial that is conducted to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and suitability of a test automation tool before implementing it on a larger scale1.

The objectives of a pilot project may vary depending on the context and scope of the test automation initiative, but some common ones are2:

To get familiar with the functionality and options of the tool

To check how the tool fits to the existing test processes and environment

To assess the benefits and challenges of using the tool

To decide upon standards and guidelines for tool implementation and usage

To estimate the costs and resources required for tool deployment and maintenance

Therefore, option C is not a valid objective of a pilot project, as it is not necessary to train all testers on using the tool at this stage. Training all testers on using the tool would be more appropriate after the tool has been selected and approved for full-scale implementation, and after the standards and guidelines have been established. Training all testers on using the tool during the pilot project would be inefficient, costly, and premature, as the tool may not be suitable or effective for the intended purpose, or may be replaced by another tool later.

References:

1: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 82

2: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 83

: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 84

: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 85

Test automationimproves efficiency and accuracy, butit does NOT eliminate manual testing (D).

(A) is correctbecause automationspeeds up execution.

(B) is correctas automated tests produceconsistent and unbiased results.

(C) is correctbecause automationreduces human errors in repetitive tests.

However,manual testing remains essential for exploratory testing, usability testing, and complex test scenarios.

This answer is correct because code-related white-box test techniques are test design techniques that use the structure of the code to derive test cases. They provide an objective measure of coverage, such as statement coverage, branch coverage, or path coverage, which indicate how much of the code has been exercised by the test cases. Code-related white-box test techniques can be used to complement black-box test techniques, which are test design techniques that use the functional or non-functional requirements of the system or component to derive test cases. By combining both types of techniques, testers can increase their confidence in the code and find more defects. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.2

According to the description provided, when both systems A and B come back up at the same time, the process should involve a decision about which system should become active. However, the description states that if both systems come up simultaneously, one should become active based on a specific condition or precedence. Generally, in disaster recovery systems, there are protocols to avoid both systems becoming active simultaneously to prevent conflicts. Therefore, the transition where both A and B come back up at the same time and A becomes active while B becomes inactive without any conflict or decision-making step is incorrect​​.

The testing of software does not demonstrate the absence of defects, but rather the presence of defects or the conformance of the software to the specified requirements1. Testing can never prove that the software is defect-free, as it is impossible to test all possible scenarios, inputs, outputs, and behaviors of the software2. Testing can only provide a level of confidence in the quality of the software, based on the coverage, effectiveness, and efficiency of the testing activities3.

The other options are correct because:

A. Properly designed tests that pass reduce the level of risk in a system, as they verify that the system meets the expected quality attributes and satisfies the needs and expectations of the users and clients4. Risk is the potential for loss or harm due to the occurrence of an undesirable event5. Testing can help to identify, analyze, prioritize, and mitigate the risks associated with the software product and project6.

C. Software testing identifies defects, which can be used to improve development activities, as they provide feedback on the quality of the software and the effectiveness of the development processes7. Defects are flaws or errors in the software that cause it to deviate from the expected or required results or behavior. Testing can help to detect, report, track, and resolve the defects, and prevent them from recurring in the future.

D. Performing a review of the requirement specifications before implementing the system can enhance quality, as it can ensure that the requirements are clear, complete, consistent, testable, and aligned with the needs and expectations of the users and clients. Requirements are the specifications of what the software should do and how it should do it. Testing can help to validate that the requirements are met by the software, and verify that the software is implemented according to the requirements.

References =

1 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 10

2 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 11

3 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 12

4 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 13

5 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 97

6 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 98

7 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 14

[8] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 15

[9] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 16

[10] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 17

[11] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 18

[12] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 19

The statement that the shift-left approach can only be implemented with test automation is false. The shift-left approach emphasizes early testing activities in the software development lifecycle to detect and address defects as soon as possible. While test automation can support shift-left practices, it is not the only method. The shift-left approach can also involve practices such as static analysis, early requirement reviews, and integrating security vulnerability assessments early in the development process.

A mature software testing company, especially one certified at TMMi level 5, is expected to have well-defined and adaptable processes. These companies recognize that test design techniques should be chosen based on the specific context of the project, including the domain and stakeholder expectations, rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. This ensures that the testing is effective and aligned with project requirements.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.1 on test design techniques and their selection based on context​​.

This answer is correct because equivalence partitioning is a test design technique that divides the input domain of a system or component into partitions of equivalent data, such that each partition is expected to produce the same output or behavior. Equivalence partitioning aims to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. In this case, the input domain of the TAS can be divided into four partitions based on the bonus rules: less than 50k€, between 50k€ and 80k€, between 80k€ and 120k€, and more than 120k€.The test cases in the answer belong to the same partition, which is between 80k€ and 120k€, and they are expected to produce the same output, which is a bonus of 15%. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.1

Static testing involves reviewing the code, requirements, and design documents without executing the code. It is effective in finding certain types of bugs that do not require the code to be run. One common example of such a bug is variables that are declared but not initialized. These issues can be detected through code inspections or static analysis tools, which can identify uninitialized variables, missing declarations, and other coding standard violations without the need to execute the code​​.

This answer is correct because identifying potential anomalies in the work product under review is one of the tasks the Author is responsible for, as part of a typical formal review. The Author is the person who creates the work product to be reviewed, such as a requirement specification, a design document, or a test case. The Author’s tasks include preparing the work product for the review, identifying potential anomalies in the work product, and fixing the anomalies found in the work product after the review. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.4.2.1

Failures can be caused by defects, but also by environmental conditions. A failure is an event in which the software system does not perform a required function or performs a function incorrectly, according to the expected behavior. A defect is a flaw in the software system or a deviation from the requirements or the specifications, that may cause a failure. However, not all failures are caused by defects, as some failures may be caused by environmental conditions, such as hardware malfunctions, network interruptions, power outages, incompatible configurations, etc. Environmental conditions are factors that affect the operation of the software system, but are not part of the software system itself. The other statements are false, because:

A defect does not always produce a failure, while a bug always produces a failure. This statement is false, because a defect may or may not produce a failure, depending on the inputs, the outputs, the states, or the scenarios of the software system, and a bug is just another term for a defect, so it has the same possibility of producing a failure as a defect. For example, a defect in a rarely used feature or a hidden branch of the code may never produce a failure, while a defect in a frequently used feature or a critical path of the code may produce a failure often. A bug is not a different concept from a defect, but rather a synonym or a colloquial term for a defect, so it has the same definition and implications as a defect.

A defect may cause a failure which, when occurring, always causes an error. This statement is false, because an error is not a consequence of a failure, but rather a cause of a defect. An error is a human action or a mistake that produces a defect in the software system, such as a typo, a logic flaw, a requirement misunderstanding, etc. An error is not observable in the software system, but rather in the human mind or the human work products, such as the code, the design, the documentation, etc. A failure is not a cause of an error, but rather a result of a defect, which is a result of an error. For example, an error in the code may cause a defect in the software system, which may cause a failure in the software behavior.

Bugs are defects found during component testing, while failures are defects found at higher test levels. This statement is false, because bugs and failures are not different types of defects, but rather different terms for defects and their manifestations. As mentioned before, bugs are just another word for defects, and failures are the events in which the software system does not perform as expected due to defects. Bugs and failures can be found at any test level, not only at component testing or higher test levels. Test levels are the stages of testing that correspond to the levels of integration of the software system, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing. Defects and failures can occur and be detected at any test level, depending on the test objectives, the test basis, the test techniques, and the test environment. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.1.2, Testing and Quality1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.2.1, Testing Principles1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.3.1, Testing in Software Development Lifecycles1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Failure, Defect, Bug, Environmental Condition, Error, Test Level2

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.

The primary objectives of testing, as outlined in the ISTQB CTFL v4.0 syllabus, include verifying whether specified requirements are met (A), detecting failures and defects (B), and validating that the test object functions as expected (D). However, "finding errors" (C) is not a direct objective. Errors result from human mistakes, but testing primarily identifies defects, which are flaws in the system that cause failures. Testing aims to reveal defects rather than directly identify errors in the code.

Exploratory testing is characterized by its reliance on the skills and experience of the tester. The effectiveness of exploratory testing depends heavily on the tester's ability to design and execute tests based on their intuition and knowledge of the application. This type of testing is often performed without predefined test cases, making the individual tester's expertise crucial.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 4.4 on experience-based testing techniques, including exploratory testing, which highlights the importance of the tester's skills​​.

Covering all transitions at least once is the highest coverage criterion for state transition based test cases, because it ensures that every possible change of state is tested at least once. This means that all the events that trigger the transitions, as well as the actions and outputs that result from the transitions, are verified. Covering all transitions at least once also implies covering all states at least once, but not vice versa. Therefore, option D is not the highest coverage criterion. Option C is the lowest coverage criterion, because it only tests the initial and final states of the system or component, without checking the intermediate states or transitions. Option A is incorrect, because the coverage criteria for state transition based test cases can be determined and compared based on the number of transitions and states covered. References = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 4.2.3, page 49-50.

The question is about marking the correct sentences among the given statements related to defects, failures, and mistakes. According to the ISTQB glossary, the definitions of these terms are1:

Defect: A flaw in a component or system that can cause the component or system to fail to perform its required function, e.g. an incorrect statement or data definition. A defect, if encountered during execution, may cause a failure of the component or system.

Failure: An event in which a component or system does not perform a required function within specified limits.

Mistake: A human action that produces an incorrect result.

Therefore, out of the five given statements, only two are correct, namely:

A human mistake may produce a defect: This is true, as a mistake is a source or cause of a defect, e.g. a programmer may make a mistake in writing a code statement, which results in a defect in the software component.

When a defect exists in a system it may result in a failure: This is true, as a defect is a potential or actual cause of a failure, e.g. a defect in the software component may cause the system to fail to perform a required function when the defect is encountered during execution.

The other three statements are incorrect, namely:

Defects are a result of environmental conditions and are also referred to as “Failures”: This is false, as defects are not a result of environmental conditions, but of mistakes or other factors, and defects are not the same as failures, but rather the causes of failures.

A system will totally fail to operate correctly when a failure exists in it: This is false, as a system may not necessarily fail completely or stop operating when a failure occurs, but may continue to operate with reduced functionality or performance, or with incorrect results.

Defects occur only as a result of technology changes: This is false, as defects can occur due to various reasons, not only technology changes, such as human mistakes, design flaws, requirement changes, hardware failures, etc.

References:

1: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms 4.0, 2023, available at ISTQB) and ASTQB).

ï‚· Product Risks:Relate to the quality of the software product itself, such as functionality, performance, security, and user experience.

II:A session management issue affects the product's security and functionality.

IV:Inability to maintain operation and data corruption directly affects the product's reliability and data integrity.

ï‚· Project Risks:Relate to the circumstances and activities within the project, such as schedule, resources, and planning.

I:Poor hardware equipment for performance testing impacts the project's ability to conduct performance tests.

III:Inadequate requirement specifications affect the project timeline and the ability to design tests.

Sequential models, such as the Waterfall model, typically involve completing the requirements review before moving on to test analysis, as well as producing extensive product documentation (i and iv). Iterative and incremental models, like Agile and Spiral models, often involve both static and dynamic testing at the unit testing level, frequent regression testing due to continuous integration and changes, and more use of exploratory testing (ii, iii, and v).

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 2.1 on software development lifecycle models and their impact on testing, which discusses the characteristics and testing practices of different lifecycle models​​.

State transition testing validatesvalid and invalid state transitionsbased on defined rules.

D is invalidbecause it transitionsfrom DIAGNOSTIC MODE directly to EMERGENCY MODE, which isnot a valid state changein most systems.

Other options follow valid sequences according tostate transition rules.

One of the primary benefits of using test automation tools is the reduction in time spent on repetitive tasks. Automation allows tests to be run quickly and consistently, freeing up testers to focus on morecomplex and exploratory testing tasks. While automation can help increase test coverage and improve efficiency, it does not necessarily reduce the number of found bugs or always decrease the total cost of the test project.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 6.2 on the benefits of test automation​​.

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 withTC4(no dependencies, CONF1).

Continue withTC3(depends on TC4, CONF1).

Switch to CONF2.

ExecuteTC2(depends on TC4, CONF2).

Continue withTC1(no dependencies, CONF2).

Finally, executeTC5(depends on TC1, CONF2).

Therefore, the correct order is:

TC4(CONF1)

TC3(CONF1)

TC2(CONF2)

TC1(CONF2)

TC5(CONF2)

Thus, the answer isA. TC4, TC3, TC2, TC1, TC5.

A test plan serves multiple purposes, such as defining the scope, approach, resources, and schedule of the testing activities. It also helps in communicating important information and managing stakeholder expectations. In agile projects, test plans might be concise to align with agile principles of simplicity and flexibility. A one-page test plan can effectively communicate broad activities and strategic decisions, such as not writing detailed test cases due to the project's agile nature. This approach ensures that essential information is conveyed without unnecessarydocumentation overhead, adhering to the agile manifesto's value of "working software over comprehensive documentation"​​.

The fact that defects are usually not evenly distributed among the various modules that make up a software application, but rather their distribution tend to reflect the Pareto principle, is expressed by the testing principle referred to as ‘Defects cluster together’. This principle states that a small number of modules contain most of the defects detected, or that a small number of causes are responsible for most of the defects. This principle can be used to guide the test analysis and design activities, by prioritizing the testing of the most critical or risky modules, or by applying more rigorous test techniques to them. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 1.2.1, page 11; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 16.

This answer is correct because the test procedures of all test cases that have been executed are not a typical content of a test completion report for a test project. A test completion report is a document that summarizes the test activities and results at the end of a test project. It usually includes information such as the test objectives, scope, approach, resources, schedule, results, deviations, issues, risks, lessons learned, and recommendations for improvement. The test procedures of all test cases that have been executed are part of the test documentation, but they are not relevant for the test completion report, as they do not provide a high-level overview of the test project outcomes and performance. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.5.3.2

The correct outcome of a two-value boundary value analysis applied to the password length is the set of test cases represented by option D. Boundary value analysis is a test design technique that focuses on the values at the boundaries of an equivalence partition, such as the minimum and maximum values, or the values just above and below the boundaries. A two-value boundary value analysis uses two values for each boundary, one representing the valid value and one representing the invalid value. For example, if the valid range of values is from 4 to 7, then the two values for the lower boundary are 3 and 4, and the two values for the upper boundary are 7 and 8. The test cases in option D use these values for the password length, while also satisfying the other requirements of the password, such as containing at least one numeric character, one capital letter, and one lowercase letter. The test cases in option D are:

1RhT: a 4-character password that is valid

rSp53: a 5-character password that is valid

3N3e10: a 6-character password that is valid

8sBdby: an 8-character password that is invalid The test cases in the other options are incorrect, because they either use values that are not at the boundaries of the password length, or they do not meet the other requirements of the password. For example, the test cases in option A are:

1xA: a 3-character password that is invalid, but it does not contain a capital letter

aB11: a 4-character password that is valid

Pq1ZZab: a 7-character password that is valid

7iDD0a1x: an 8-character password that is invalid References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.1, Black-box Test Design Techniques1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Boundary Value Analysis, Equivalence Partition2

In the ISTQB terminology:

A defect (also known as a bug or fault) is an issue in the code that can cause a failure.

A failure is the observable incorrect behavior or output of the software due to a defect.

In this scenario, the memory leak is the defect in the application code that causes the application not to release dynamically allocated memory properly. The observable effect of this defect, which is the slowdown in response time, is considered a failure because it is the manifestation of the defect that prevents the application from meeting its performance requirements.

The whole team approach in testing means that the responsibility for testing is shared among all members of the team, not just the testers. This concept is emphasized in agile methodologies where collaboration and collective ownership of quality are key principles. Each team member, including developers, business analysts, and testers, contributes to the testing process, ensuring that quality is built into the product from the beginning.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 1.5.2 on the "whole team approach" which describes the collective responsibility of the team for testing​​.

According to the ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, page 18, a failure is “an event in which a component or system does not perform a required function within specified limits”. In this case, the calculator software does not perform the required function of calculating the correct result for 5+6 within the specified limits of accuracy and precision. Therefore, this is an example of a failure.

The other options are incorrect because:

A mistake is “a human action that produces an incorrect result” (page 25). A mistake is not an event, but an action, and it may or may not lead to a failure. For example, a mistake could be a typo in the code, a wrong assumption in the design, or a misunderstanding of the requirement.

A fault is “a defect in a component or system that can cause the component or system to fail to perform its required function” (page 16). A fault is not an event, but a defect, and it may or may not cause a failure. For example, a fault could be a logical error in the code, a missing specification in the design, or a contradiction in the requirement.

An error is “the difference between a computed, observed, or measured value or condition and the true, specified, or theoretically correct value or condition” (page 15). An error is not an event, but a difference, and it may or may not result in a failure. For example, an error could be a rounding error in the calculation, a measurement error in the observation, or a deviation error in the condition.

References = ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, pages 15-18, 25; ISTQB CTFL 4.0 - Sample Exam - Answers, Version 1.1, 2023, Question 96, page 34.

 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 todetect 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 effectivenessand 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.

Based on the given user story and acceptance criteria, the ATDD (Acceptance Test-Driven Development) approach focuses on defining acceptance tests before development begins. The first test written typically covers the "happy path" or the most straightforward scenario to ensure the primary functionality works as expected.

The registration form must be filled with valid values.

The user must accept terms and conditions.

An email with a confirmation link must be sent after submission.

Given Acceptance Criteria:The most likely first ATDD test would ensure that a new user can successfully register by filling in all fields with valid data and confirming the registration through an email link. This ensures that the basic and most crucial functionality of the registration feature is working correctly before handling edge cases or error conditions.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus Section 2.3 on acceptance test-driven development (ATDD)​​.

A test status report communicates the current status, progress, and issues encountered during testing to stakeholders. It is crucial for effective test management and decision-making.

Option A:Correct as it involves reporting impediments and solutions, which are essential for ongoing test activities.

Option B:Incorrect because test status reports are not limited to test completion activities and focus more on ongoing test status rather than final unmitigated risks.

Option C:Incorrect as the structure and contents of reports should be tailored to the audience's needs to ensure effective communication.

Option D:Incorrect because specifying communication lines is typically done in the test plan, not the status report.

Thus, option A best describes a key aspect of a test status report.

Independent of the software development lifecycle followed, it is a good practice to ensure that each test level (e.g., unit testing, integration testing, system testing) has clear and appropriate objectives. This ensures that the testing is focused and effective at each level. Other options either contradict good practices or are not applicable across all lifecycle models.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 1.4.1 on test levels and objectives, emphasizing the importance of defining clear test objectives for each level of testing​​.

A test-first approach involves writing tests before writing the code. In this approach, initially, the tests fail because the corresponding functionality is not yet implemented. Afterward, the code is written or modified to make the tests pass. This cycle is repeated iteratively. This method ensures that the code is developed based on predefined tests and helps in identifying issues early in the development process​​.

When a document management system is decommissioned, maintenance testing must include data migration testing to ensure that all documents are correctly transferred to a state archive, meeting legal requirements for long-term storage. This process verifies that data integrity is maintained during migration.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 2.3, page 29: Maintenance Testing and Data Migration​

Traceability is an essential aspect of software testing that ensures each test case can be traced back to its corresponding test basis items, such as requirements, design documents, or user stories. This linkagehelps in determining which test basis items have been covered by executed test cases, identifying the impact of changes, and maintaining overall test documentation. However, the statement that traceability enables experience-based test techniques to be applied is false, as experience-based test techniques, such as exploratory testing, rely on the tester's skills and experience rather than documented traceability.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 1.4.4, page 19: Importance of Traceability

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.

Statement coverage is a structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of executable statements in the source code that are executed by a test suite1. Decision coverage is another structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of decision outcomes (such as branches or conditions) in the source code that are executed by a test suite1. Decision coverage is a stronger metric than statement coverage, because it requires that every possible outcome of each decision is tested, while statement coverage only requires that every statement is executed at least once2. Therefore, if a test suite achieves 100% decision coverage, it also implies that it achieves 100% statement coverage, because every statement in every branch or condition must have been executed. However, the converse is not true: 100% statement coverage does not guarantee 100% decision coverage, because some branches or conditions may have multiple outcomes that are not tested by the test suite2. For example, consider the following pseudocode:

if (x > 0) then print(“Positive”) else print(“Non-positive”) end if

A test suite that executes this code with x = 1 and x = -1 will achieve 100% statement coverage, because both print statements are executed. However, it will not achieve 100% decision coverage, because the condition x > 0 has only been tested with two outcomes: true and false. The third possible outcome, x = 0, has not been tested by the test suite. Therefore, the test suite may miss a potential bug or error in the condition or the branch.

The other options, such as stale transition coverage, equivalence class coverage, and boundary value coverage, are not guaranteed to be 100% by achieving 100% decision coverage. Stale transition coverage is a structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of transitions between states in a state machine that are executed by a test suite3. Equivalence class coverage is a functional coverage metric that measures the percentage of equivalence classes (or partitions) of input or output values that are tested by a test suite4. Boundary value coverage is another functional coverage metric that measures the percentage of boundary values (or extreme values) of input or output ranges that are tested by a test suite4. These metrics are independent of decision coverage, because they are based on different aspects of the system under test, such as its behavior, functionality, or specification. Therefore, achieving 100% decision coverage does not imply achieving 100% of any of these metrics, and vice versa. References = ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Test Coverage in Software Testing - Guru99, Structural Coverage Metrics - MATLAB & Simulink - MathWorks India, Test Design Coverage in Software Testing - GeeksforGeeks.

Business, development, and testing (C)are the three key perspectives inagile user story refinement:

Business (Product Owner, Stakeholders)– Ensures the story aligns with user needs and business goals.

Development (Developers)– Provides insights on feasibility and technical constraints.

Testing (Testers, QA)– Ensures testability, acceptance criteria, and risk identification.

(A) is incorrectbecause the product owner is part of business stakeholders.

(B) is incorrectbecause architecture is part of development, but not the primary driver of user stories.

(D) is incorrectbecauseacceptance testing is a process, not a stakeholder group.

Across-functional team collaborationensureswell-defined, testable, and feasibleuser stories.

Testing and debugging are separate but related activities. Testing executes the software to identify failures that result from defects (A). Debugging is the developer's responsibility and involves finding the cause of a failure (defect), analyzing it, and fixing the defect. The ISTQB syllabus explicitly differentiates these activities. Testing does not modify the software, whereas debugging does.

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​​.

ATDD stands for Acceptance Test-Driven Development, which is a collaborative approach to software development and testing, in which the acceptance criteria of a user story are defined and automated as executable tests before the implementation of the software system. ATDD tests are usually written in a Given-When-Then format, which describes the preconditions, the actions, and the expected outcomes of a test scenario. ATDD tests are intended to verify that the software system meets the expectations and the needs of the users and the stakeholders, as well as to provide feedback and guidance for the developers and the testers. Based on the given information, the ATDD test that is most likely to be written first is the one that corresponds to option B, which is:

Given the logged-in user is on the Change Password page When the user enters the correct current password, enters a valid new password (different from the last 5 passwords), and presses the Change Password button Then the user receives an email confirming that the password has been successfully changed

This ATDD test is most likely to be written first, because it covers the main functionality and the happy path of the user story, as well as the most important acceptance criterion [a]. It also verifies that the user can change the password with a valid new password that meets the criteria related to the length, the type of characters, and the history of the passwords, as specified in the acceptance criterion [c]. The other options are not likely to be written first, because they either cover less critical or less frequent scenarios, such as entering a wrong current password [d] or an invalid new password [e], or they are not related to the user story or the acceptance criteria at all, such as submitting a purchase order [d]. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.3.1, Testing in Software Development Lifecycles1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Acceptance Test-Driven Development, User Story, Acceptance Criterion, Given-When-Then2

Branch coverage is a type of structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of branches or decision outcomes that are executed by the test cases. A branch is a point in the code where the control flow can take two or more alternative paths based on a condition. For example, an if-else statement is a branch that can execute either the if-block or the else-block depending on the evaluation of the condition. Branch coverage ensures that each branch is taken at least once by the test cases, and thus reveals the behavior of the software under different scenarios. Branch coverage is also known as decision coverage or all-edges coverage.

Branch coverage is suitable for testing the cases where a specific action is not allowed, because it can verify that the test cases cover all the possible outcomes of the conditions that determine the action. For example, if the program has a condition that checks if the manufacturing stage can be stopped, then branch coverage can ensure that the test cases cover both the cases where the stage can be stopped and where it cannot be stopped. This way, branch coverage can help identify any missing or incorrect branches that may lead to undesired or unsafe actions.

The other options are not correct because they are not suitable for testing the cases where a specific action is not allowed. Code coverage is a general term that encompasses various types of coverage metrics, such as statement coverage, branch coverage, data flow coverage, etc. Code coverage does not specify which type ofcoverage metric is used for the analysis. Data flow coverage is a type of structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of data flow paths that are executed by the test cases. A data flow path is a sequence of statements that define, use, or kill a variable. Data flow coverage is useful for testing the correctness and completeness of the data manipulation in the software, but not for testing the conditions that determine the actions. Statement coverage is a type of structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of statements or lines of code that are executed by the test cases. Statement coverage ensures that each statement is executed at least once by the test cases, but it does not reveal the behavior of the software under different scenarios. Statement coverage is a weaker criterion than branch coverage, because it does not account for the branches or decision outcomes in the code. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, Chapter 4: Test Techniques, Section 4.3: Structural Testing Techniques, Pages 51-54.