iSQI CTFL_Syll2018 ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (Syllabus 2018) Exam Practice Test

A software company decided to buy a commercial application for its accounting operations. As part of the evaluation process, the company decided to assemble a team to test a number of candidate applications. The most suitable team for this goal would be a team with a mix of software testers and experts from the accounting department. This team would have the following advantages:

• Software testers have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company. They can also use tools and techniques to support their testing activities and provide reliable and objective information about the quality and risk level of each candidate application.
• Experts from the accounting department have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application. They can also provide feedback and suggestions for improvement based on their needs and expectations as end users or customers.

The other teams mentioned in the question are not as suitable for this goal as they are for other purposes or scenarios. For example:

• A team from an outsourcing company which specializes in testing accounting software: This team might have the skills and experience to test accounting software, but they might not have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the specific requirements and criteria of the company that wants to buy the application. They might also lack the communication and collaboration with the stakeholders of the company who are involved in the evaluation process.
• A team of users from the accounting department that will need to use the application on a daily basis: This team might have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application, but they might not have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company. They might also lack the tools and techniques to support their testing activities and provide reliable and objective information about the quality and risk level of each candidate application.
• A team from the company’s testing team, due to their experience in testing software: This team might have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company, but they might not have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application. They might also lack the feedback and suggestions for improvement based on the needs and expectations of the end users or customers.

Multiple condition coverage is a structure-based test technique that aims to achieve a high level of coverage by testing all possible combinations of conditions and outcomes in each decision point of the code or design of the system under test. Multiple condition coverage verifies that each condition in a decision point has an effect on the outcome and that there are no hidden defects or logical errors in the code or design. Multiple condition coverage requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system under test; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does. Multiple condition coverage is one of the most rigorous and complex structure-based test techniques because it can generate a large number of test cases for each decision point, especially if there are many conditions involved. You can find more information about multiple condition coverage in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

The requirement given in the image specifies a field asking for the number of group members, which can be anywhere from 2 to 20 visitors. To test this requirement, we can use boundary value analysis, which is a specification-based test technique that involves testing the values at or near the boundaries of an equivalence partition. An equivalence partition is a set of values that are expected to be treated in the same way by the system under test. For example, based on the requirement, we can identify two equivalence partitions for the input group size:

• EP1: Group size < 2 (invalid)
• EP2: Group size = 2 (valid)
• EP3: 2 < Group size < 20 (valid)
• EP4: Group size = 20 (valid)
• EP5: Group size > 20 (invalid)

The boundary values for each equivalence partition are the values at or near the edges of the partition. For example, the boundary values for EP1 are -1 and 1. The boundary values for EP2 are 1 and 2. The boundary values for EP3 are 2 and 19. And so on.

To test this requirement using boundary value analysis, we need to select one value from each boundary and test it with different combinations of valid and invalid inputs. For example, we can select the following values:

• BV1: Group size = -1 (from EP1)
• BV2: Group size = 1 (from EP1 and EP2)
• BV3: Group size = 2 (from EP2 and EP3)
• BV4: Group size = 19 (from EP3 and EP4)
• BV5: Group size = 20 (from EP4 and EP5)
• BV6: Group size = 21 (from EP5)

We can then create test cases using these values and different combinations of valid and invalid inputs. For example:

• TC1: Group size = -1 -> Invalid input
• TC2: Group size = 1 -> Invalid input
• TC3: Group size = 2 -> Valid input
• TC4: Group size = 19 -> Valid input
• TC5: Group size = 20 -> Valid input
• TC6: Group size = 21 -> Invalid input

Therefore, we need a minimum of 6 valid test cases to achieve 100% boundary value coverage based on input group size.

You can find more information about boundary value analysis in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

 System integration testing and acceptance testing are two different levels of testing that have different objectives and stakeholders. System integration testing is the process of testing the interactions and interfaces between different components or systems that form a larger system. System integration testing verifies that the system meets its functional and non-functional requirements and works as expected in its intended environment. System integration testing is usually done by testers or developers who have access to the system architecture and design specifications. Acceptance testing is the process of testing the system by the end users or customers to determine if it satisfies their needs and expectations and is ready for deployment or delivery. Acceptance testing verifies that the system complies with the user requirements and business processes and provides value to the stakeholders. Acceptance testing is usually done by users or customers who have access to the user requirements and business scenarios. You can find more information about system integration testing and acceptance testing in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 2, Sections 2.2 and 2.31.

Test metrics are quantitative measures that are used to monitor, control, and improve the test process and its outcomes. Test metrics can be collected at different levels of testing (test case, test suite, test project, etc.) and can be used for different purposes (planning, estimation, execution, evaluation, etc.). Some examples of common test metrics are:

• Percentage of work done in test environment creation: This metric indicates how much effort has been spent on setting up and maintaining the test environment, which includes hardware, software, network, data, tools, etc., that are required for conducting the test activities.
• Number of test cases run: This metric indicates how many test cases have been executed during a given period or phase of testing.
• Deviation from test milestone dates: This metric indicates how much delay or ahead of schedule the test activities are compared to the planned dates.
• Defect density: This metric indicates how many defects have been found per unit of size or functionality of the system under test.

Average number of expected defects per requirement is not a common test metric because it is not easy to estimate or measure how many defects are likely to be found for each requirement. Moreover, this metric does not provide useful information for improving the test process or evaluating the test results. You can find more information about test metrics in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 5, Section 5.41.

Pair programming is a software development technique where two programmers work together on the same code at the same workstation. One programmer, called the driver, writes the code while the other programmer, called the navigator, reviews the code and provides feedback and suggestions. Pair programming is not only a coding technique but also an informal review method because it involves constant communication and collaboration between the programmers who check each other’s work and share their knowledge and skills. Pair programming can improve the quality and productivity of software development by reducing defects, increasing code readability, enhancing learning opportunities, and fostering creativity and innovation. Pair programming is usually used in agile methods such as Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum, or Kanban. It is not an alternative term for code inspection, which is a formal review method where a group of reviewers examine a piece of code in a structured and systematic way following predefined rules and roles. It is also not done with developer and tester pairing together because pair programming requires both programmers to have similar levels of expertise and familiarity with the code they are working on. You can find more information about pair programming in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 31.

A configuration management tool is a tool that allows users to manage and control the versions and changes of software artifacts, such as code, documents, test cases, etc. A configuration management tool can help prevent the loss of Sam’s updates by:

• Providing a centralized repository where Sam can store and retrieve his test cases and other artifacts
• Keeping track of the history and status of each artifact and allowing Sam to compare and revert to previous versions if needed
• Supporting collaboration and communication among team members by allowing them to share and access the latest versions of the artifacts

The other tools mentioned in the question are not relevant for this scenario because they do not provide the same functionality or benefits as a configuration management tool. For example:

• A. Incident management tool: This tool type allows users to record, track, manage, and report the defects found during testing. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.
• C. Test execution tool: This tool type allows users to execute test cases automatically or semi-automatically and compare the actual results with the expected results. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.
• D. Backup tool: This tool type allows users to create copies of data or files and store them in a different location or device for recovery purposes. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.

You can find more information about configuration management tools in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 6, Section 6.4.

Component testing is a part of the V-Model, which is a development life cycle model that shows the relationship between each phase of development and its corresponding phase of testing. In this model, each level of testing (unit testing, integration testing, system testing, acceptance testing) has a corresponding level of development (component design, component integration, system design, requirements analysis). Component testing is the process of testing individual components or units of software in isolation from other components or systems. Component testing verifies that the components meet their functional and non-functional requirements and work as expected in their intended environment. Component testing is usually done by developers who have access to the component design and code specifications. You can find more information about component testing and the V-Model in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 22.

The term ‘Pesticide paradox’ refers to the phenomenon where the effectiveness of test cases that are repeated and focused on the same scenarios decreases over time because they tend to find the same defects or no defects at all. This is because the system under test becomes more resistant or immune to the existing test cases, just like pests become more resistant or immune to pesticides over time. To overcome the pesticide paradox, test cases should be regularly reviewed and updated to cover new or changed requirements, scenarios, risks, or defects. Test cases should also be designed to cover different aspects and perspectives of the system under test, such as functionality, usability, performance, security, etc. You can find more information about the pesticide paradox in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.11.

Test estimation is the process of predicting the effort, time, and resources required for testing a software system. Test estimation depends on several factors that influence the scope, complexity, and quality of testing. Some of these factors are:

• Characteristics of the product: This factor indicates how difficult or challenging it is to test the software system based on its size, functionality, reliability, usability, performance, security, etc.
• Characteristics of the development process: This factor indicates how well or poorly the software system is developed based on the development methodology, standards, tools, techniques, etc.
• Characteristics of the test process: This factor indicates how effective or efficient the testing process is based on the test strategy, plan, design, execution, evaluation, etc.
• Characteristics of the test team: This factor indicates how skilled or experienced the test team is based on their knowledge, competence, motivation, communication, collaboration, etc.

The outcome of testing of previous test cycle is not a factor on which test estimation is dependent upon because it does not affect the effort, time, or resources required for testing the current test cycle. Rather, it is an outcome or consequence of test estimation that can provide feedback and lessons learned for improving future test estimations. You can find more information about test estimation in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 22.

A tool type is a category of tools that have similar features and functions and can be used for similar purposes. A test manager is a person who is responsible for planning, monitoring, controlling, and reporting the test activities and results. A test manager needs to use tools that can help them with these tasks and provide them with useful information and insights. Some examples of tool types that are useful for a test manager are:

• Defect tracking tool: This tool type allows the test manager to record, track, manage, and report the defects found during testing. It also helps the test manager to communicate with developers, testers, and other stakeholders about the defect status and resolution.
• Test management tool: This tool type allows the test manager to organize, manage, and control the test process and its outcomes. It also helps the test manager to define the test strategy, plan the test activities, allocate the test resources, schedule the test execution, monitor the test progress, and evaluate the test results.
• Requirements management tool: This tool type allows the test manager to manage and trace the requirements of the system under test. It also helps the test manager to ensure that the test objectives are aligned with the user needs and expectations and that the test coverage is adequate and complete.

The other tool types mentioned in the question are not as useful for a test manager as they are for other roles or purposes. For example:

• Modeling tool: This tool type allows the user to create graphical or textual representations of software systems or processes. It can be used for design, analysis, simulation, or documentation purposes.
• Static analysis tool: This tool type allows the user to examine the code or design of a software system without executing it. It can be used for finding defects, measuring complexity, checking compliance, or improving quality.
• Coverage measurement tool: This tool type allows the user to measure how much of the code or design of a software system has been exercised by a set of test cases. It can be used for evaluating the effectiveness or completeness of testing.

You can find more information about tool types in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 61.

Memory leaks are errors that occur when a program does not release memory that it has allocated, causing the system to run out of memory and slow down or crash. Memory leaks cannot be detected by structure-based testing techniques, which are based on the code structure and logic. Structure-based testing techniques can only find errors that are related to the control flow, data flow, or logic of the program. For example, they can find errors such as features that are only partially implemented, data structures that are used before initialization, or division by zero. To detect memory leaks, you need dynamic analysis tools that monitor the memory usage of the program during execution. You can find more information about structure-based testing techniques and dynamic analysis tools in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Sections 4.2 and 4.31.

One of the basic principles of testing is that for a software system, it is not possible under normal conditions to test all input and output combinations because they are too many and too complex to cover within a reasonable time and budget. Therefore, testers have to select a subset of inputs and outputs that are representative and relevant for testing based on criteria such as requirements, risks, priorities, etc. This principle implies that testing cannot prove that a software system is defect-free or has a certain level of quality because there might be some untested inputs or outputs that could reveal defects or failures. Testing can only provide information about the quality and risk level of a software system based on the observed behavior and results under certain conditions and assumptions. You can find more information about the basic principles of testing in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 11.

The V-model is a development life cycle model that shows the relationship between each phase of development and its corresponding phase of testing. In this model, each level of testing (unit testing, integration testing, system testing, acceptance testing) has a corresponding level of development (component design, component integration, system design, requirements analysis). The model also shows that testing activities should start as early as possible in the development process and that each level of testing should be planned and designed in parallel with its corresponding level of development. Therefore, one of the roles of a tester in a software company that adopts the V-model is to coordinate the test strategy with the project managers who are responsible for planning and managing each phase of development. This role involves defining the scope, objectives, approach, resources, schedule, risks, and deliverables of each level of testing in alignment with the development plan and the project requirements. You can find more information about the V-model and test planning in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 22.

Test techniques are methods or procedures that can be used to design, execute, or evaluate test cases. Test techniques can be classified into two categories: specification-based and structure-based. Specification-based test techniques, also known as black-box test techniques, are based on the requirements, specifications, or expectations of the system under test. They do not require any knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system. Some examples of specification-based test techniques are use case testing, state transition testing, decision table testing, etc. Structure-based test techniques, also known as white-box test techniques, are based on the code, architecture, or design of the system under test. They require some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system. Some examples of structure-based test techniques are control flow testing, data flow testing, branch testing, statement testing, etc. You can find more information about test techniques in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 41.

Maintenance testing is a type of testing that is performed after a software product has been delivered and deployed to ensure that it still meets its requirements and functions correctly after changes have been made to it or to its environment. Changes can include corrective changes (fixing defects), adaptive changes (adapting to new platforms or environments), perfective changes (improving performance or usability), or preventive changes (avoiding potential problems). One of the appropriate reasons for maintenance testing is to verify that the software product works as expected after upgrading the operating system, which is an example of an adaptive change. Other reasons for maintenance testing can include verifying that the software product works as expected after fixing defects, adding new features, improving performance, or preventing future issues. You can find more information about maintenance testing in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 12.

The most important report improvement is A. Add an impact analysis. An impact analysis is an assessment of how the defect affects the functionality, usability, performance, reliability, security, or other aspects of the system under test. An impact analysis can help prioritize and classify the defect based on its severity and urgency. An impact analysis can also help determine the root cause and possible solutions for the defect. An impact analysis is an essential part of a defect report because it provides useful information for decision-making and improvement processes.

The other report improvements are not as important as adding an impact analysis because they do not provide as much information or value for decision-making and improvement processes. For example:

• B. Add information about which developer should fix the bug: This report improvement is not necessary because it is not part of the information that is required to describe, reproduce, and prioritize the defect. The assignment of developers to fix bugs is part of the defect management process, which involves assigning, tracking, resolving, and verifying defects.
• C. Add the time stamp when the incident happened: This report improvement is not very useful because it does not provide much information about the cause or effect of the defect. The time stamp when the incident happened is only relevant if it is related to some external factors or events that could influence the behavior or performance of the system under test.
• D. Add information about which web browser was used: This report improvement is not very relevant because it does not affect the functionality or usability of the system under test. The web browser used is only relevant if it is related to some compatibility or interoperability issues that could cause defects or failures in the system under test.

You can find more information about defect reports and impact analysis in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 5.

Functional testing is an example of black-box dynamic testing. Functional testing is the process of testing the functionality or behavior of a software system based on its requirements or specifications. Functional testing does not require any knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system under test; it only focuses on what the system does rather than how it does it. Functional testing is also an example of dynamic testing because it involves executing the software system with selected inputs and observing its outputs and effects on the environment. Dynamic testing is different from static testing, which involves examining the software system without executing it, such as code inspection, static analysis, etc. You can find more information about functional testing and dynamic testing in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 21.

The requirement given in the image specifies an additional fee of $3 that is charged during the weekend, with some exceptions and discounts based on the age of the visitors. To test this requirement, we can use boundary value analysis, which is a specification-based test technique that involves testing the values at or near the boundaries of an equivalence partition. An equivalence partition is a set of values that are expected to be treated in the same way by the system under test. For example, based on the requirement, we can identify the following equivalence partitions for the input age:

• EP1: Age < 0 (invalid)
• EP2: Age = 0 (valid, no charge)
• EP3: 0 < Age < 7 (valid, no charge)
• EP4: Age = 7 (valid, 20% discount)
• EP5: 7 < Age < 13 (valid, 20% discount)
• EP6: Age = 13 (valid, 20% discount)
• EP7: 13 < Age < 65 (valid, full charge)
• EP8: Age = 65 (valid, 50% discount)
• EP9: Age > 65 (valid, 50% discount)

The boundary values for each equivalence partition are the values at or near the edges of the partition. For example, the boundary values for EP3 are 1 and 6. The boundary values for EP4 are 6 and 7. The boundary values for EP5 are 7 and 12. And so on.

To test this requirement using boundary value analysis, we need to select one value from each boundary and test it with different combinations of weekend and weekday. For example, we can select the following values:

• BV1: Age = -1 (from EP1)
• BV2: Age = 0 (from EP2 and EP3)
• BV3: Age = 6 (from EP3 and EP4)
• BV4: Age = 7 (from EP4 and EP5)
• BV5: Age = 12 (from EP5 and EP6)
• BV6: Age = 13 (from EP6 and EP7)
• BV7: Age = 64 (from EP7 and EP8)
• BV8: Age = 65 (from EP8 and EP9)
• BV9: Age = 66 (from EP9)

We can then create test cases using these values and different combinations of weekend and weekday. For example:

• TC1: Age = -1, Weekend = Yes -> Invalid input
• TC2: Age = -1, Weekend = No -> Invalid input
• TC3: Age = 0, Weekend = Yes -> No charge
• TC4: Age = 0, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC5: Age = 6, Weekend = Yes -> No charge
• TC6: Age = 6, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC7: Age = 7, Weekend = Yes -> $2.40 ($3 - 20% discount)
• TC8: Age = 7, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC9: Age = 12, Weekend = Yes -> $2.40 ($3 - 20% discount)
• TC10: Age = 12, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC11: Age = 13, Weekend = Yes -> $2.40 ($3 - 20% discount)
• TC12: Age = 13, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC13: Age = 64, Weekend = Yes -> $3
• TC14: Age = 64, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC15: Age = 65, Weekend = Yes -> $1.50 ($3 - 50% discount)
• TC16: Age = 65, Weekend = No -> No charge
• TC17: Age = 66, Weekend = Yes -> $1.50 ($3 - 50% discount)
• TC18: Age =

66, Weekend = No -> No charge

Therefore, we need a minimum of 18 valid test cases to achieve 100% boundary value coverage based on input age.

$3.01 is not a valid output boundary value because it is not a possible output value based on the requirement. The output values can only be $0, $1.50, $2.40, or $3 depending on the input age and weekend status.

You can find more information about boundary value analysis in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

Risk-based testing is an approach to testing that prioritizes and focuses on testing activities based on the level of risk associated with each feature or function of the system under test. Risk-based testing aims to optimize the use of time, resources, and techniques for testing by identifying and addressing the most critical and likely sources of failure or harm in the system under test. Some examples of typical risk-based testing activities are:

• Brainstorming sessions are held with a wide variety of stakeholders to identify possible failures in the system: This activity is part of the risk identification process, which involves gathering information and opinions from different perspectives and sources to discover potential risks in the system under test.
• Tests are prioritized to ensure that those associated with critical parts of the system are executed earlier: This activity is part of the risk analysis and evaluation process, which involves assessing the probability and impact of each risk and ranking them according to their severity and importance.
• The focus of testing is shifted to an area in the system where tests find more defects than expected: This activity is part of the risk mitigation and monitoring process, which involves taking actions to reduce or eliminate the risks and tracking their status and progress.

The evaluation of a risk-management tool to decide which tool to use for future projects is not an example of a typical risk-based testing activity because it is not directly related to testing the system under test based on its risks. Rather, it is an example of a tool selection or evaluation activity, which involves comparing and choosing a tool that can support or enhance the testing process based on criteria such as functionality, usability, reliability, compatibility, cost, etc. You can find more information about risk-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 3, Section 3.4.

Testing tools can be used by both developers and testers for different purposes and at different stages of the software development life cycle. For example, developers can use tools such as unit testing frameworks, code coverage tools, debugging tools, static analysis tools, etc., to improve the quality of their code and find defects early. Testers can use tools such as test management tools, test design tools, test execution tools, test data preparation tools, performance testing tools, etc., to support their testing activities and increase their efficiency and effectiveness. The use of testing tools does not necessarily imply test automation, which is the use of software to perform or support test activities that would otherwise require manual intervention. Test automation is a complex and costly process that requires careful planning, design, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation. The use of testing tools also does not change the role of the test team, which is still responsible for defining the test strategy, designing the test cases, analyzing the test results, reporting the defects, etc. You can find more information about testing tools and test automation in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 61.

To achieve 100% statement coverage, you need to execute every statement in the code at least once. In this case, you need two test cases: one where condition A is true and one where condition A is false. This way, you can cover both the DO B statement and the END IF statement. You can find more information about statement coverage in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.31.

Regression testing is a type of testing that is performed after a software system has been changed or modified to verify that the changes have not introduced any new defects or adversely affected the existing functionality of the system. Regression testing can be performed when the software system undergoes different types of changes, such as:

• Corrective changes: Changes that fix defects or errors in the software system
• Adaptive changes: Changes that adapt the software system to new platforms or environments
• Perfective changes: Changes that improve the performance or usability of the software system
• Preventive changes: Changes that avoid potential problems or issues in the software system

In this case, the software system was re-deployed because the backend database was changed from one vendor to another, which is an example of an adaptive change. Therefore, the test manager decided to perform some functional tests on the re-deployed system to ensure that the change did not affect the functionality of the system. This is an example of regression testing.

The other types of testing mentioned in the question are not relevant for this scenario. For example:

• Non-functional testing: This type of testing verifies the non-functional aspects of the software system, such as reliability, performance, security, usability, etc.
• Structural testing: This type of testing verifies the internal structure or implementation of the software system, such as code, architecture, design, etc.
• Unit testing: This type of testing verifies individual components or units of software in isolation from other components or systems.

You can find more information about regression testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 2, Section 2.4.

Use case testing is a specification-based test technique that is based on the use cases or scenarios that describe how users interact with the system under test. Use case testing aims to find defects in the process flow or functionality of the system under test by verifying that it behaves as expected according to the use cases or scenarios. Use case testing does not require any knowledge of the data flow or structure of the system under test; it only focuses on what the system does rather than how it does it. Use case testing can be done by professional testers or real users, depending on the level and purpose of testing. Use case testing can also be designed by customers or end users, developers, testers, analysts, or anyone who has access to the use case specifications or user requirements. You can find more information about use case testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

The ‘Standard for Software Test Documentation’ specification (IEEE 829) is a standard that defines a set of documents that can be used to document the test process and its outcomes. The standard provides an outline for each document, specifying its purpose, content, and format. However, the standard does not prescribe how to apply it in different contexts or projects. It is up to each organization or project to decide how to adapt the standard to their specific needs and situation. Therefore, the standard is not a rigid or mandatory requirement that must be followed strictly by all testers. Rather, it is a flexible and adaptable guideline that can be used as a reference or a starting point for creating test documentation regimes. You can find more information about IEEE 829 and test documentation in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 51.

The fundamental test process activity where the sufficiency of testing and resulting information are assessed is Evaluating exit criteria and reporting. This activity involves checking whether the test objectives have been met and whether there are any unresolved issues or risks that could affect the release or deployment decision. This activity also involves preparing and communicating a test summary report that summarizes the test activities and results and provides recommendations and feedback for improvement. You can find more information about Evaluating exit criteria and reporting in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 3, Section 3.5.

The extent of testing required for a software product or feature depends on several factors that influence the level of quality and risk involved in delivering or deploying it. Some of these factors are:

• Budget to do testing: This factor indicates how much money is available or allocated for conducting the test activities, which affects the scope, depth, duration, and resources of testing.
• Time available to do testing: This factor indicates how much time is available or allocated for conducting the test activities, which affects the schedule, frequency, speed, and coverage of testing.
• Level of risk of the product or feature: This factor indicates how much impact or harm a failure or defect in the product or feature can cause to the users, customers, stakeholders, or environment, which affects the priority, intensity, complexity, and rigor of testing.
• Complexity of the product or feature: This factor indicates how difficult or challenging it is to understand, design, implement, or maintain the product or feature, which affects the effort, skill, technique, and tool required for testing.

A particular tester involved in testing is not a deciding factor in determining the extent of testing required because it does not affect the quality or risk level of the product or feature being tested. Rather, it is an outcome or consequence of deciding how much testing is needed based on other factors such as budget, time, risk, and complexity. You can find more information about determining the extent of testing in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 2, Section 2.12.

Confirmation testing, also known as re-testing, is the process of testing a defect that has been fixed to verify that it has been resolved and does not affect other parts of the system. Confirmation testing is usually done by the same tester who reported the defect and using the same test case that revealed the defect. You can find more information about confirmation testing in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 3, Section 3.21.

Beta testing is a type of acceptance testing that is normally performed by customers or potential customers at their own locations. Beta testing is done after the software product has passed the internal testing and quality assurance processes and is ready for release or deployment. Beta testing allows the customers or users to evaluate the software product in their real environment and provide feedback and suggestions for improvement. Beta testing can also help identify defects, compatibility issues, usability problems, or performance bottlenecks that might not have been detected during the internal testing. You can find more information about beta testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 2, Section 2.3.

Static analysis tools are tools that examine the code or design of a software system without executing it. Static analysis tools can be used to find defects, measure complexity, check compliance, or improve quality. Some examples of defect types that can be found by static analysis tools are:

• Variables that are never used: This defect type occurs when a variable is declared but not referenced or assigned in the code, which indicates a waste of memory or a logic error.
• Coding standard violations: This defect type occurs when the code does not follow the predefined rules or conventions for formatting, naming, commenting, etc., which affects the readability and maintainability of the code.
• Uncalled functions and procedures: This defect type occurs when a function or procedure is defined but not called or invoked in the code, which indicates a waste of resources or a missing functionality.

Memory leaks are defect types that are least likely to be found by static analysis tools because they are related to the dynamic behavior and performance of the software system. Memory leaks occur when a program does not release memory that it has allocated, causing the system to run out of memory and slow down or crash. Memory leaks can only be detected by dynamic analysis tools that monitor the memory usage of the program during execution. You can find more information about static analysis tools in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 6, Section 6.3.

The statement that does not describe how testing contributes to higher quality is “The testing of software demonstrates the absence of defects”. This statement is false because testing cannot prove that a software system is defect-free or has a certain level of quality because there might be some untested inputs or outputs that could reveal defects or failures. Testing can only provide information about the quality and risk level of a software system based on the observed behavior and results under certain conditions and assumptions. The other statements describe how testing contributes to higher quality by:

• Performing a review of the requirement specifications before implementing the system can enhance quality: This statement is true because reviewing the requirement specifications can help identify and prevent defects, ambiguities, inconsistencies, or incompleteness in the requirements before they are implemented in the system, which can save time and effort and improve customer satisfaction.
• Properly designed tests that pass reduce the level of risk in a system: This statement is true because passing tests can increase confidence that the system meets its requirements and expectations and provides value to the users and customers. Passing tests can also reduce the probability or impact of failures or defects in the system that could cause harm or loss.
• Software testing identifies defects, which can be used to improve development activities: This statement is true because identifying defects can help analyze and remove their causes and prevent them from recurring in future development activities. Identifying defects can also help improve development processes, methods, standards, tools, techniques, etc., by providing feedback and lessons learned.

You can find more information about how testing contributes to higher quality in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 1.

A requirements management tool may be considered as a test support tool because it can help support or enhance some aspects of testing activities or processes. A requirements management tool is a tool that allows users to manage and trace the requirements of a software system. A requirements management tool can help support or enhance testing activities or processes by:

• Providing a clear and consistent definition of what needs to be tested based on user needs and expectations
• Enabling traceability between requirements and test cases to ensure adequate and complete test coverage
• Supporting change management and impact analysis by identifying and tracking changes in requirements and their effects on testing activities and results

The diagram lists various types of operating systems (LNX, W2K, WSP), databases (ORA, MSQ, SQL), and application servers (JBS, WSP) supported by the application under test. To test all possible combinations of these types, we need to multiply the number of options in each category. In this case, we have:

• 3 options for operating systems
• 3 options for databases
• 2 options for application servers

Therefore, we have 3 x 3 x 2 = 18 possible combinations to test.

However, if we look closely at the diagram, we can see that some combinations are not valid or feasible because they are not connected by lines. For example, we cannot test LNX with WSP as an application server because there is no line between them. Similarly, we cannot test W2K with JBS as an application server because there is no line between them. Therefore, we need to exclude these invalid combinations from our calculation.

If we count only the valid combinations that are connected by lines in the diagram, we get:

• 5 combinations for LNX (LNX-ORA-JBS, LNX-ORA-WSP, LNX-MSQ-JBS, LNX-MSQ-WSP, LNX-SQL-JBS)
• 5 combinations for W2K (W2K-ORA-WSP, W2K-MSQ-WSP, W2K-SQL-WSP)
• 5 combinations for WSP (WSP-ORA-JBS, WSP-ORA-WSP, WSP-MSQ-JBS, WSP-MSQ-WSP)

Therefore, we have 5 + 5 + 5 = 15 valid combinations to test.

You can find more information about testing combinations in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 4, Section 4.22.

Statement testing is part of structure-based testing, which is a type of testing that verifies the internal structure or implementation of a software system, such as code, architecture, design, etc. Statement testing is a structure-based test technique that involves testing every statement in the code at least once to ensure that there are no syntax errors, logical errors, or hidden defects in the code. Statement testing requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the software system; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does.

The other types of testing mentioned in the question are not related to statement testing because they do not verify the internal structure or implementation of a software system. For example:

• A. Experience-based testing: This type of testing relies on the skills, knowledge, intuition, and creativity of testers to design and execute test cases based on their experience with similar systems or situations.
• B. Decision testing: This type of testing verifies every decision point in the code by testing all possible outcomes or branches of each decision point to ensure that there are no logical errors or hidden defects in the code.
• C. Specification-based testing: This type of testing verifies the external behavior or functionality of a software system based on its requirements, specifications, design documents, or other sources of information.

You can find more information about statement testing and structure-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

The requirement given in

the image specifies

the charge for

a money transfer based on

the amount

of money transferred.

The amount can be anywhere from 1 to 5000 euros, with different charges applied for different ranges of amounts.

To test this requirement, we can use equivalence partitioning, which is a specification-based test technique that involves dividing the input or output values into groups or partitions that are expected to be treated in the same way by the system under test. For example, based on the requirement, we can identify the following equivalence partitions for the input amount:

• EP1: Amount < 1 (invalid)
• EP2: 1 <= Amount <= 1999 (valid, charge = 10 euros)
• EP3: 2000 <= Amount <= 5000 (valid, charge = 15 euros)
• EP4: Amount > 5000 (invalid)

The set of amounts that covers all equivalence partitions is C. 0-100-2000-6000. This set of amounts includes one value from each equivalence partition and ensures that all possible scenarios are tested. For example:

• TC1: Amount = 0 -> Invalid input
• TC2: Amount = 100 -> Valid input, charge = 10 euros
• TC3: Amount = 2000 -> Valid input, charge = 15 euros
• TC4: Amount = 6000 -> Invalid input

The other sets of amounts do not cover all equivalence partitions because they either include values that belong to the same partition or exclude values that belong to different partitions. For example:

• A. 0-1999-2000-5000 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes two values that belong to EP2 (1999 and 2000) and excludes any value that belongs to EP3.
• B. 1-2000-5001-10000 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes two values that belong to EP4 (5001 and 10000) and excludes any value that belongs to EP2.
• D. 99-1-2000-4999.99 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes a value that is not an integer (4999.99), which violates the assumption that only integer values can occur.

You can find more information about equivalence partitioning in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

The Test Analysis and Design activity of the test process is the activity where test conditions and test cases are identified and specified based on the test objectives and criteria. The Test Analysis and Design activity also involves identifying and preparing the necessary test data and test environment to support the test execution. Some of the tasks of the Test Analysis and Design activity are:

• Reviewing the test basis: This task involves reviewing the requirements, specifications, design documents, or other sources of information that form the basis for testing.
• Identifying test conditions: This task involves identifying what needs to be tested based on the test basis and objectives.
• Designing and prioritizing test cases: This task involves designing specific scenarios or steps to verify each test condition and assigning priorities to them based on their importance or risk level.
• Identifying necessary test data to support the test conditions and test cases: This task involves identifying what data is needed to execute each test case and how to obtain or generate it.
• Identifying and preparing the test environment: This task involves identifying what hardware, software, network, data, tools, etc., are needed to execute the test cases and how to set up and maintain them.

Measuring the percentage of prepared test cases with what was actually prepared is not a task of the Test Analysis and Design activity because it does not involve identifying or specifying anything related to testing. Rather, it is a task of the Test Monitoring and Control activity, which involves measuring and reporting the progress and status of testing against the planned activities and criteria. You can find more information about the Test Analysis and Design activity in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 31.

A decision table is a specification-based test technique that involves creating a table that shows the combinations of inputs and outputs for a system under test based on certain conditions and rules. A decision table can be used to design test cases that cover all possible scenarios and outcomes for a system under test. Some statements about decision tables are:

• I. Generally, decision tables are generated for low risk test items: This statement is false because decision tables can be generated for any level of risk test items depending on the complexity and variability of the system under test. Decision tables are especially useful for testing systems that have many inputs, outputs, conditions, and rules that affect their behavior or performance.
• II. Test cases derived from decision tables can be used for component tests: This statement is true because decision tables can be used to design test cases for any level or type of testing, including component tests. Component tests are tests that verify individual components or units of software in isolation from other components or systems.
• III. Several test cases can be selected for each column of the decision table: This statement is true because each column of the decision table represents a unique combination of inputs and outputs for the system under test based on certain conditions and rules. Therefore, each column can be used as a basis for selecting one or more test cases that cover that combination.
• IV. The conditions in the decision table represent negative tests generally: This statement is false because the conditions in the decision table can represent both positive and negative tests depending on the requirements and expectations of the system under test. Positive tests are tests that verify that the system under test behaves as expected under valid or normal inputs or conditions. Negative tests are tests that verify that the system under test handles errors or exceptions gracefully under invalid or abnormal inputs or conditions.

You can find more information about decision tables in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

Boundary Value Analysis is a black-box testing technique that is used to test the boundaries or limits of input or output values for a given system or component. Boundary Value Analysis helps to identify errors at the edges of an input or output domain. For example, in a system designed to work out the employee tax to be paid, there are four boundaries for the salary input: $4,000 (lower boundary for tax free), $5,500 (upper boundary for tax free and lower boundary for 10% tax), $34,000 (upper boundary for 10% tax and lower boundary for 22% tax), and any value above $34,000 (upper boundary for 22% tax and lower boundary for 40% tax). A valid Boundary Value Analysis test case would test one value below, on, and above each boundary. For example, $33,501 is a valid test case because it is one value above the boundary of $34,000. A detailed explanation of Boundary Value Analysis can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 38-41.

• An incident report is a document that records any event occurring during testing that requires investigation1. An incident report should contain sufficient information to enable reproduction of the incident and resolution of the defect1. According to IEEE 829 Standard for Software Test Documentation, an incident report should contain the following information:

Therefore, among the options given in this question, only D provides the best detail on an incident report. It contains a clear title, a reproducibility indicator, a description that includes both expected and actual results, a reference to the specification document, and a screen shot of the failure. The other options are either missing some important information or providing inaccurate or irrelevant information

Screen-dialog flows are sequences of screens and dialogs that represent the user interface and interaction of a system. Use case testing is a technique that uses use cases as a test basis to derive test cases1. A use case is a description of interactions between actors and a system to achieve a goal1. Use case testing is the most effective technique in testing screen-dialog flows, as it can capture the user requirements, scenarios, and expected outcomes of the system. Boundary value testing is a technique that uses boundary values as a test basis to derive test cases1. A boundary value is an input value or output value on the edge of an equivalence partition or at the smallest or largest value of a range1. Boundary value testing is not the most effective technique in testing screen-dialog flows, as it is more suitable for testing numerical inputs and outputs. Statement testing and coverage is a technique that uses statements in the source code as a test basis to measure the coverage achieved by a test suite1. A statement is a minimal executable unit of source code1. Statement testing and coverage is not the most effective technique in testing screen-dialog flows, as it is more suitable for testing the internal logic and structure of the code. State transition testing is a technique that uses state transition diagrams as a test basis to derive test cases1. A state transition diagram shows the states of a system and the transitions between them triggered by events or conditions1. State transition testing is not the most effective technique in testing screen-dialog flows, as it is more suitable for testing systems that have complex or dynamic behavior based on different states.

Static analysis is a technique to find defects in software source code and software models, performed without executing code. Static analysis can be done manually or automatically using tools that examine the code or design of a software system without running it. Static analysis can help identify and prevent defects, measure complexity, check compliance, or improve quality.

The other statements are not correct definitions of static analysis because they describe different concepts related to testing. For example:

• A. The decision between using white or black box test techniques: This statement describes a test strategy, which is an approach or method for designing and executing test cases based on various factors, such as scope, objectives, risks, resources, etc.
• B. Executing software to validate the most common path through the code: This statement describes dynamic testing, which is a technique to find defects in software by executing it under various conditions and inputs and comparing the actual results with the expected results.
• D. It is a testing technique used during system testing: This statement describes a test level, which is a group of test activities that are organized and managed together based on some criteria, such as objectives, scope, target audience, etc.

You can find more information about static analysis in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 6, Section 6.3.

Functional and structural tests are alternative test types that may be used separately or together at B. All test levels. Functional testing is a type of testing that verifies the functionality of the system or component under test against its requirements or specifications. Functional testing focuses on what the system or component does, not how it does it. Structural testing is a type of testing that verifies the structure or code of the system or component under test. Structural testing focuses on how the system or component does it, not what it does. Functional and structural testing can be used separately or together at any test level, such as unit testing, integration testing, system testing, acceptance testing, etc. Functional and structural testing can complement each other by providing different perspectives and coverage of the system or component under test. A detailed explanation of functional and structural testing can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 25-26.

Each review has clear defined objectives, the right people for the review objective are involved, and there is an emphasis on learning and process improvement are typically found to enable the review process to be successful1. A review is a type of static testing that involves the examination of software artifacts by humans to find defects, improve quality, or achieve other objectives1. A review process should have clear defined objectives that specify the purpose, scope, and expected outcomes of the review1. The right people for the review objective should be involved, such as reviewers, moderators, authors, managers, etc., who have the appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, and roles to perform the review effectively1. There should also be an emphasis on learning and process improvement, as reviews can provide feedback and suggestions to improve the software artifacts, processes, and skills of the participants1. Therefore, these characteristics are typically found to enable the review process to be successful.

Decision testing is a white box (structure-based) test case design technique1. White box (structure-based) test case design techniques are techniques that use the structure or logic of the source code as a test basis to derive test cases and measure test coverage1. Decision testing is a technique that uses decisions (or branches) in the source code as a test basis to measure the coverage achieved by a test suite1. A decision (or branch) is a point in the source code where the control flow can take two or more alternative paths based on a condition1. Decision testing requires every decision (or branch) in the source code to take both true and false outcomes at least once by a test suite1. Therefore, decision testing is a white box (structure-based) test case design technique.

When an organization considers the use of testing tools, they should C. Perform analysis of the test process and then assess whether it can be supported through the introduction of tool support. Testing tools can provide many benefits to the test process, such as increased efficiency, effectiveness, consistency, quality, etc. However, testing tools also have some challenges and risks associated with them, such as cost, learning curve, compatibility, maintenance, etc. Therefore, before introducing any testing tool, an organization should analyze their current test process and identify their needs, goals, expectations, constraints, etc., and then evaluate whether a tool can support them or not. A detailed explanation of testing tools can be found in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, pages 193-1983.

Statement coverage is not a black box technique, because it requires knowledge of the internal structure of the code. Black box techniques are based on the external behavior and specification of the software, without looking at the code. Equivalence partitioning, state transition testing, and boundary value analysis are all examples of black box techniques12

The fundamental test process is a generic model that describes the main activities and tasks involved in testing. The fundamental test process consists of five phases: planning and control, analysis and design, implementation and execution, evaluation of exit criteria and reporting, and test closure activities. Implementation and execution is the phase where test cases and test procedures are implemented according to test specifications and executed on the system or component under test using test tools or manual methods. Implementation and execution also involves verifying that the test environment set up is correct, which means ensuring that the test environment (such as hardware, software, network, data, etc.) is ready and suitable for testing the system or component under test. A detailed explanation of implementation and execution can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 19-21.

Testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification as soon as the UAT specification has been drafted1. UAT stands for user acceptance testing, which is a type of testing that verifies that the software product meets the acceptance criteria and expectations of the end users or customers1. A UAT specification is a document that defines the scope, objectives, approach, and criteria for UAT1. Testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification as soon as the UAT specification has been drafted, as this can help to ensure that the UAT specification is clear, complete, consistent, testable, and aligned with the user requirements1. Testers can also provide feedback and suggestions to improve the UAT specification and avoid potential issues or conflicts during UAT execution1. Therefore, testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification as soon as the UAT specification has been drafted.

To apply to the RAD development model. Metrics are quantitative measures that can be used to monitor, control, and improve the test process and the quality of the system. Metrics can be used for various purposes, such as to identify the percentage of work done in test environment preparation or test case preparation, to measure whether dates of test milestones were met, to compare actual results with expected results, to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of testing, etc. However, metrics are not specific to any development model, such as RAD (Rapid Application Development), and can be applied to any type of software development project. A detailed explanation of metrics can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 103-105.

Exhaustive testing is a technique that covers all possible combinations of inputs and preconditions2. However, it is not recommended to perform exhaustive testing, as it is usually impractical and impossible due to the large number of test cases required2. Instead, risk analysis and priorities should be used to focus testing efforts on the most important and critical aspects of the system under test2.

The test organization that has the highest level of independence is C. Independent test specialists for specific test types, such as usability, performance or certification test specialists. Test independence refers to the degree of separation between the tester and the developer or user of the system or component under test. Test independence can help to reduce bias and increase objectivity in testing. Independent test specialists are testers who have specialized skills and knowledge in specific test types or domains and who are not involved in the development or use of the system or component under test. Independent test specialists can provide more reliable and accurate results than testers who are part of the development team or user community. A detailed explanation of test independence can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 9-10.

These are the four test levels defined for a common V-model testing approach, according to the ISTQB Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus. Unit testing is another term for component testing, and maintenance testing is not a test level, but a type of testing that can be performed at any level.

Testing support tools are software tools that assist testers in performing testing activities, such as test management, test design, test execution, test evaluation, and defect management1. According to the ISTQB syllabus, some typical targets of testing support tools are to automate activities that require significant resources when done manually, automate activities that cannot be executed manually, and automate repetitive tasks1. Automating repetitive inspections is not a typical target of testing support tools, as inspections are static testing techniques that involve human review and analysis of software artifacts1.

Performance, Load, Stress. Performance testing is a type of non-functional testing that measures how well the system performs under various conditions, such as response time, throughput, resource utilization, etc. Load testing is a type of performance testing that simulates a high volume of user requests or transactions on the system and measures its behavior under normal and peak load conditions. Stress testing is a type of performance testing that simulates extreme or abnormal conditions on the system and measures its behavior under stress or overload conditions. These test types would help verify the requirements such as minimum number of enquiries per hour, availability, and response time under peak loads. A detailed explanation of performance, load, and stress testing can be found in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, pages 187-1913.

Test cases derived from the knowledge of the testers and the knowledge of testers, developers and users are used to drive testing apply to experience-based techniques1. Experience-based techniques are techniques that use the skill, intuition, and experience of testers, developers, and users to derive test cases, using error guessing and exploratory testing1. Error guessing is a technique that uses common sense and previous experience to guess where defects might occur in a system1. Exploratory testing is an approach that involves simultaneous learning, test design, and test execution1. Experience-based techniques are typically used when there is insufficient information or time to apply other more formal techniques1. Therefore, test cases derived from the knowledge of the testers and the knowledge of testers, developers and users are used to drive testing apply to experience-based techniques.

•  According to the IEEE 829 Standard for Software Test Documentation, an incident report should contain the following information:

Therefore, among the options given in this question, only (i), (iii), and (iv) are part of an incident report based on IEEE 829.

The test execution schedule should take into account the prioritization and other constraints given in the question. The first activity is to run any re-tests, followed by the regression test script. Users have supplied their priority order to tests. Therefore, the test execution schedule should start with the re-test defect no 52, which is shown in the image as a table with 9 rows and 4 columns. The table is titled “Re-test defect no 52”. The columns are labeled: “#”, “Description”, “Priority”, “Note”, “Re-test”. The table is populated with data about different tasks and their priority and notes. The tasks are related to sales figures and account administration. The table is in black and white. The re-test defect no 52 has three tasks: c, a, and d, which have priority 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Therefore, the test execution schedule should start with c, followed by a, and then d. After that, the regression test script should be run, which is task e. Then, the remaining tasks should be run according to the user priority order: b, g, i, h, and f. Therefore, the test execution schedule is c, a, d, e, b, g, i, h, and f.

Equivalence partitioning is best defined as an analysis technique that divides inputs into groups that are expected to exhibit similar behaviors. The idea is to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each group or partition. Equivalence partitioning does not apply to time-related data classes only, but to any type of input data that can be divided into partitions. Equivalence partitioning is not a form of white-box testing, but a black-box testing technique. Equivalence partitioning is not a method to reduce test coverage, but a method to achieve test coverage more efficiently.

 Test objectives are specific goals or targets that define what testing activities should achieve or accomplish1. Test objectives for systems testing of a safety critical system include completion of all outstanding defect correction. Regression testing is required following defect correction at all test levels. Therefore, to determine whether this test objective has been met, two metrics that would be most suitable are:

• Regression tests run and passed in systems testing: This metric measures how many regression tests have been executed and passed in systems testing1. Regression testing is a type of testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after changes or defect corrections1. This metric can indicate whether all outstanding defect corrections have been completed and verified in systems testing.
• Incidents raised and closed at all levels of testing: This metric measures how many incidents have been reported and resolved at all levels of testing1. An incident is any event occurring during testing that requires investigation1. This metric can indicate whether all defects have been identified and corrected at all levels of testing.

The Cambrian Pullman Express has special ticketing requirements represented by the partial decision table below. The decision table has six columns representing six rules and eight rows representing eight conditions or actions. The table is filled with “Y” and “N” values indicating whether a particular condition is met for a particular rule.

!decision table

Carol has a student railcard and is travelling on a Flexible Standard Class ticket. James has a senior railcard and is travelling on a super saver ticket. The question asks which of the options represents the correct actions for these two test cases. To answer this question, we need to find the matching rule for each test case and then look at the corresponding actions. For Carol, the matching rule is rule 2, as she has a student railcard (Y) and a Flexible Standard Class ticket (Y). The actions for rule 2 are: OK to travel (Y), eligible to upgrade (Y), and concessionary fare (N). Therefore, Carol is OK to travel and eligible to upgrade, but not entitled to a concessionary fare. For James, the matching rule is rule 6, as he has a senior railcard (Y) and a super saver ticket (N). The actions for rule 6 are: OK to travel (N), eligible to upgrade (N), and concessionary fare (N). Therefore, James cannot use the service, is not eligible to upgrade, and is not entitled to a concessionary fare. Among the options given in this question, only A correctly represents these actions. A says that Carol is eligible to upgrade and James cannot use the service. Therefore, A is the correct answer.

This is the definition of a data driven approach to test automation design, which allows for reusability and maintainability of test scripts. Option A describes a keyword driven approach, which uses action words to describe the test steps and data. Option B is not related to test automation design, but rather to performance testing. Option C is also not related to test automation design, but rather to a testing technique.

The statement that best characterizes maintenance testing is A. Maintenance testing is triggered by changes to delivered software and uses impact analysis to minimize the amount of regression testing needed. Maintenance testing is a type of testing that is performed on a software product after it has been delivered to the customer or user, and aims to ensure that the software product still meets its requirements and expectations after any changes or modifications. Maintenance testing is triggered by changes to delivered software, such as bug fixes, enhancements, patches, updates, etc., and uses impact analysis to determine the scope and extent of regression testing needed. Impact analysis is a technique that analyzes the potential effects of changes on the existing software product and its components, dependencies, interfaces, etc., and identifies which parts of the software product need to be retested or modified. Impact analysis helps to minimize the amount of regression testing needed by focusing on the most affected or critical parts of the software product. A detailed explanation of maintenance testing can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 81-82.

Independence from the production process is a characteristic that is most likely to promote effective software testing1. Independence from the production process means that the testers are not involved in the development or maintenance of the software product under test, and thus can provide an unbiased and objective view of its quality1. Independence from the production process can also help to avoid conflicts of interest, reduce confirmation bias, increase defect detection, and improve test coverage1. Therefore, independence from the production process is a characteristic that is most likely to promote effective software testing.

The statement that BEST describes when test planning should be performed is D. Test planning is performed continuously in all life cycle processes and activities. Test planning is the process of defining the objectives, scope, approach, resources, schedule, risks, and deliverables for testing activities. Test planning is not a one-time activity that is done only at the beginning of the life cycle or at each test level. Test planning is a continuous activity that is done throughout the life cycle in all processes and activities that involve testing. Test planning should be aligned with the development process and should be updated regularly to reflect any changes or feedback from previous testing activities. Test planning should also consider different levels of testing (such as unit testing, integration testing, system testing, acceptance testing, etc.) and different types of testing (such as functional testing, non-functional testing, regression testing, etc.). A detailed explanation of test planning can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 13-15.

The testing effort required to test a software product depends on various factors, such as the size and complexity of the product, the quality of the requirements and design documents, the testability of the product, the test strategy and scope, the test environment and tools, the skills and experience of the testers, and the quality expectations and standards of the stakeholders1. Among these factors, the requirements for reliability and security in the product will most affect the testing effort required to test a software product1. Reliability and security are quality attributes that measure how well a software product performs its intended functions under specified conditions and protects itself from unauthorized access or harm1. Testing for reliability and security requires more rigorous and thorough testing techniques, such as reliability testing, security testing, penetration testing, stress testing, etc1. These techniques may require more time, resources, tools, and skills to perform effectively1. Therefore, the requirements for reliability and security in the product will most affect the testing effort required to test a software product.

Experience-based test design techniques are techniques that use the skill, intuition, and experience of testers to derive test cases, using error guessing and exploratory testing1. Error guessing is a technique that uses common sense and previous experience to guess where defects might occur in a system1. Exploratory testing is an approach that involves simultaneous learning, test design, and test execution1. Experience-based test design techniques are typically used when there is insufficient information or time to apply other more formal techniques1. They do not use decision tables, identify the structure of the system or software, or establish traceability from test conditions back to the specifications and requirements.

Decision coverage is a structure-based test technique that involves testing every decision point in the code by testing all possible outcomes or branches of each decision point. Decision coverage requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the software system; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does.

The pseudo code given in the question has one decision point at line 4, where the value of Gender is compared to ‘female’. This decision point has two possible outcomes or branches:

• True branch: If Gender = ‘female’, then print “Ms” at line 5.
• False branch: If Gender != ‘female’, then print “Mr” at line 7.

To achieve 100 per cent decision coverage, we need to test both outcomes or branches of the decision point at least once. Therefore, we need two test cases that cover both scenarios:

• TC1: Gender = ‘female’ -> Print “Dear Ms”
• TC2: Gender = ‘male’ -> Print “Dear Mr”

The other options are not correct because they do not provide enough or too many test cases to achieve 100 per cent decision coverage. For example:

• A. 1: This option is not enough because it only provides one test case that covers one outcome or branch of the decision point, but not the other.
• C. 3: This option is too many because it provides three test cases that cover both outcomes or branches of the decision point, but one of them is redundant or unnecessary.
• D. 4: This option is too many because it provides four test cases that cover both outcomes or branches of the decision point, but two of them are redundant or unnecessary.

You can find more information about decision coverage and structure-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

 The other details that should be included in the incident report when it is first submitted are B. Status of the incident, degree of impact, Test Case Number. These details are important to provide information about the current state of the incident, the severity of its effect on the system or user, and the test case that detected the incident. Other details, such as suggested solution, priority, history, related defects, expected fix time, line of code, etc., can be added later during the incident management process. A detailed explanation of incident report can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 99-1001.

It can be done without reference to the internal structure of the component or system. Black-box testing techniques are based on the external behavior and functionality of the system, not on its internal structure or code. Black-box testing techniques include equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, decision table testing, state transition testing, use case testing, etc. A detailed explanation of black-box testing techniques can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 25-601.

The test tools that would be classified as test execution tools are D. b and d. Test execution tools are tools that automate the execution of test cases or test scripts, and compare the actual results with the expected results. Test execution tools can also record and replay user actions, generate test data, and report test results. Test harness and test comparators are examples of test execution tools. A test harness is a tool that creates a test environment for a component or system under test, by simulating the required dependencies, such as stubs, drivers, or mock objects. A test comparator is a tool that compares the actual outputs of a component or system under test with the expected outputs, and reports any differences or anomalies. A detailed explanation of test execution tools can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 111-1121.

Finding defects, gaining confidence about the level of quality and providing information, and preventing defects are all valid test objectives according to the ISTQB Foundation Level syllabus. Debugging the code is not a test objective, because debugging is the process of finding and fixing defects, which is done by developers, not testers3

State transition testing is a technique that uses state transition diagrams as a test basis to derive test cases2. A state transition diagram shows the states of a system and the transitions between them triggered by events or conditions2. A test case can cover one or more state transitions, depending on the test objective and coverage criterion2. In this question, the test cases (i) and (ii) cover different sets of state transitions, as shown below:

Test Case

State Transitions

(i) X-Z-V-W

S1 – S2 – S3 – S4 – S2

(ii) W-Y-U-U

S4 – S2 – S4 – S4 – S4

Independent testing is important because C. Independent testers can verify assumptions made during specification and implementation of the system. Independent testing refers to testing performed by testers who are not involved in the development or use of the system or component under test. Independent testers can provide an unbiased and objective view of the quality of the system or component under test. Independent testers can also verify assumptions made by developers or users during specification and implementation of the system or component under test. Assumptions are statements that are believed to be true without proof or verification. Assumptions can lead to errors or defects if they are incorrect or inconsistent with reality. Independent testers can help to identify and validate assumptions by using different sources of information, such as requirements, specifications, standards, regulations, etc., and by applying different testing techniques, such as black-box techniques, white-box techniques, etc. A detailed explanation of independent testing can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 9-10.

Maintenance testing is important after migration, retirement or enhancement of an existing system. defines maintenance testing as follows:

Maintenance testing is a type of software testing that occurs after changes have been made to a system in order to ensure that no new defects have been introduced and that the system still meets its original requirements and specifications.

Regression testing (A) is important after any change in the system that may affect existing functionality. Operational acceptance testing (B) is important before deploying a system into production environment. System testing © is important after integrating all components of a system into a complete system.

Test implementation and execution is the phase of the test process where test cases are executed and test results are logged. It includes activities such as checking if the preconditions of test execution have been met, executing test cases according to a test procedure, comparing actual results with expected results, logging test results and reporting defects, and repeating test activities as needed. Prioritizing test conditions is not an activity that belongs to test implementation and execution, but rather to test analysis and design, which is the phase where test conditions are identified and test cases are designed. References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.2.3 and 4.2.4

The correct answer is A, as it provides the highest level of boundary coverage using two-point boundary value analysis. Boundary value analysis is a black-box test technique that focuses on the boundaries of input and output partitions1. Two-point boundary value analysis is a variation of boundary value analysis that uses only two values for each boundary: one just below the boundary and one just above the boundary1. In this case, the boundaries are the balance ranges that correspond to different interest rates. Option A covers all four boundaries using two values for each boundary: $100.00 and $100.01 for the first boundary, $500.00 and $500.01 for the second boundary, $1,000.00 and $1,000.01 for the third boundary, and $5.00 as an invalid value below the lowest boundary. Option B covers only three boundaries using one value for each boundary: $100.00 for the first boundary, $500.00 for the second boundary, and $1,000.00 and $1,000.01 for the third boundary. Option C covers only two boundaries using three values for each boundary: $100.00, $100.01, and $100.02 for the first boundary, and $500.00 and $999.99 for the second boundary. Option D covers only two boundaries using one value for each boundary: $100.00 for the first boundary, and $1,000.01 for the third boundary, and $5.00 as an invalid value below the lowest boundary. References: 1, Section 4.2.3

  A bug report is a document that records the details of a defect or failure found during testing, such as the steps to reproduce, the expected and actual results, the severity and priority, etc. A bug report should also include any observations or suggestions that may help correct the bug, such as the possible cause, the affected components, the related requirements, etc. This information can help the developers to locate and fix the bug more efficiently and effectively. Therefore, if a tester thinks of a likely cause for a specific bug, they should make a comment about it in the bug report.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 6.

The attributes that best match each level of testing are as follows14:

• Component testing: Stubs and drivers are often used (I), as they simulate the behavior of missing or incomplete components.
• Integration testing: Testing for functional and non-functional characteristics (VI), as integration testing verifies that components interact correctly and meet their specified requirements.
• System testing: The test environment should correspond to the production environment (II), as system testing evaluates the system’s compliance with its specified requirements under realistic conditions.
• Acceptance testing: Testing can be based on use cases (IV), as acceptance testing validates that the system meets the user’s needs and expectations

 Frequency 0, 1, 5, 6; Duration 0, 1, 30, 60, 61 is the correct test set of valid and invalid boundary values applying 2-value boundary value analysis1 . Boundary value analysis is a technique that tests the values at and near the boundaries of an input domain or output range1 . A 2-value boundary value analysis tests two values for each boundary: one valid value and one invalid value1 . For Frequency, the valid boundaries are 1 and 5, so the test set should include one valid value (1 or 5) and one invalid value (0 or 6) for each boundary. For Duration, the valid boundaries are 1 and 60, so the test set should include one valid value (1 or 60) and one invalid value (0 or 61) for each boundary. The other options are incorrect test sets of valid and invalid boundary values applying 2-value boundary value analysis. Option A only includes valid values for each boundary, but not invalid values. Option B includes invalid values that are not adjacent to the boundaries (59 seconds and 60 minutes 1 second). Option D includes more than two values for each boundary (0, 1, 2 for Frequency; 0, 1, 30 for Duration).

According to the syllabus, a defect is a flaw in a component or system that can cause it to fail to perform its required function. A defect can be introduced in any phase of the software development life cycle, such as requirements, design, coding, testing, or deployment. A possible reason for introducing a defect in software code is rushing to meet a tight deadline to turn code over for testing. This can lead to careless mistakes, incomplete functionality, or poor quality code. The answer A is correct because it is an example of a possible reason for introducing a defect in software code. The other answers are incorrect because they are not reasons for introducing defects in software code, but rather consequences or detection methods of defects.

References: [Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus], Section 1.3.1, page 12-13.

If the fault in the code is contained in a small area, then it may cause the system to fail under certain circumstances, resulting in a defect1 . However, this is not a definite consequence, as it depends on whether the fault is executed or not. The other options are not definite consequences of this mistake either. Option A assumes that the system will always fail because of the fault, which may not be true if the fault is never executed or does not affect critical functionality1 . Option C assumes that there will be negative impacts on money, time, or business reputation because of the fault, which may not be true if the defect is minor or does not affect important stakeholders1 . Option D assumes that contractual requirements have not been met by testing because of the fault, which may not be true if testing has fulfilled its objectives and scope according to the contract1 .

Component integration testing is the process of testing the interactions between different components of a system. It should always be done before system testing, which is the process of testing the system as a whole. Integration testing can reveal defects in the interfaces and interactions between components, which can affect the functionality and performance of the system. System testing can reveal defects in the system requirements, design, and behavior, which can affect the quality and usability of the system. Therefore, it is logical to perform integration testing before system testing, to ensure that the components work together correctly before testing the system as a whole.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 5.1.2 and 5.2.2

The total number of combinations of valid equivalence classes of age and gender is eight. There are four valid equivalence classes for the age parameter, based on the criteria given in the image: size 1 (0 < age <= 4 months), size 2 (4 < age <= 8 months), size 3 (8 < age <= 15 months), and size 4 (15 < age <= 24 months). There are two valid equivalence classes for the gender parameter, based on the note given in the image: boy and girl. The total number of combinations of valid equivalence classes can be calculated by multiplying the number of valid equivalence classes for each parameter: 4 x 2 = 8.

B, C, and D are incorrect answers. B implies that there are two invalid equivalence classes for the age parameter: age <= 0, and age > 25, which is not true as there are three invalid equivalence classes: age <= 0, age > 0 and age <= 4 months, and age > 24 months. C implies that all combinations of valid equivalence classes could be covered with four test cases, which is not true as there are eight combinations of valid equivalence classes. D implies that all valid equivalence classes could be covered with six test cases, which is not true as there are four valid equivalence classes for the age parameter and two valid equivalence classes for the gender parameter.

 it provides the highest level of transition coverage for the model. Transition coverage is a white-box test technique that focuses on the percentage of transitions that have been exercised by a test suite1. In this case, the model is a state transition diagram that shows the possible states and transitions of a sales order software. The diagram has five states: PLACED, IN PRODUCTION, SHIPPED, INVOICED, and CANCELLED. The diagram has nine transitions: PLACED to IN PRODUCTION, PLACED to CANCELLED, IN PRODUCTION to SHIPPED, IN PRODUCTION to CANCELLED, SHIPPED to INVOICED, SHIPPED to CANCELLED, INVOICED to CANCELLED, CANCELLED to PLACED, and CANCELLED to IN PRODUCTION. Option C covers all nine transitions in the following sequence:

• IN PRODUCTION -> SHIPPED
• SHIPPED -> INVOICED
• INVOICED -> CANCELLED
• CANCELLED -> PLACED
• PLACED -> IN PRODUCTION

Option A covers only six transitions in the following sequence:

• PLACED -> CANCELLED
• CANCELLED -> PLACED
• PLACED -> IN PRODUCTION
• IN PRODUCTION -> CANCELLED

Option B covers only five transitions in the following sequence:

• PLACED -> IN PRODUCTION
• IN PRODUCTION -> SHIPPED
• SHIPPED -> CANCELLED
• CANCELLED -> PLACED

Option D covers only four transitions in the following sequence:

• IN PRODUCTION -> CANCELLED
• CANCELLED -> PLACED
• PLACED -> IN PRODUCTION

Therefore, option C is the correct answer. Options A, B, and D are incorrect, as they do not cover all the transitions in the model. References: 1, Section 4.2.2

Equivalence Partitioning is a black-box test design technique that divides input data of a software module into partitions of equivalent data from which test cases can be derived. In this context, the valid equivalence partitions are:

• Silver Tier: 0 to 400 Credits
• Gold Tier: 401 to 800 Credits
• Platinum Tier: 801 to 1400 Credits
• Concierge Tier: 1401+ Credits

The test cases provided cover all these partitions:

• TC1 covers the Silver Tier boundary at 400 Credits.
• TC2 covers within the Gold Tier at 500 Credits.
• TC3 covers the Gold Tier boundary at 800 Credits.
• TC4 covers within the Concierge Tier at 1500 Credits.

Since all valid partitions are covered by the test cases, 100% of the valid Equivalence Partitions have been achieved.

In a Scrum development life cycle model, regression testing is an increasingly important activity as the project progresses. Scrum is an agile framework that follows an iterative and incremental approach to software development, where the software is delivered in small units called sprints. Regression testing is a type of testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs as expected after changes or modifications. Regression testing is essential in Scrum, as new features or functionalities are added or modified in each sprint, which can introduce new defects or affect existing ones. Therefore, regression testing should be performed at the end of each sprint, as well as before releasing the software, to ensure that the software meets the quality standards and user expectations.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 5.3.2

The correct matching of the review process main activities with the appropriate specific review activities is as follows1:

• Planning: Estimating effort and timeframe (2), Selecting the people to participate (4)
• Initiate review: Distributing the work product and other material (5)
• Issue communication and analysis: Evaluating the review findings (6)
• Fixing and reporting: Creating defect reports (1), Recording updated status of defects (3)

Therefore, option B is the correct answer. Options A, C, and D are incorrect, as they do not match the review process main activities with the appropriate specific review activities correctly. References: 1, Section 3.2.2

The predicted number of defects and the amount of rework required is the most likely factor to impact the amount of testing effort required, because it affects the quality and stability of the software under test1 . Testing effort can increase if there are many defects in the software that need to be detected, reported, fixed, and re-tested1 . The other options are not likely to impact the amount of testing effort required directly. Option B is related to the size and composition of the project team, but it does not determine how much testing effort is needed for the software itself1 . Option C is related to the use of a project management tool to schedule tasks, but it does not affect how much testing effort is needed for each task1 . Option D is related to the responsibilities for testers and developers being clearly defined, but it does not influence how much testing effort is needed for their respective tasks1 .

A key difference between a peer review of code and static analysis of code using a tool is that static analysis targets the code technically whereas peer review is applicable to further aspects. Static analysis focuses on the technical aspects of the code, such as syntax, logic, complexity, quality, security, etc. Peer review can also address these aspects, but it can also consider other aspects, such as readability, maintainability, usability, functionality, etc. Peer review can also provide feedback, suggestions, or opinions from different perspectives or expertise levels. compares these two techniques as follows:

Static analysis tools are software tools that examine (analyse) source code without executing it. They are used by developers as part of their development environment for checking their code against coding standards (rules), finding syntax errors etc.

Peer reviews are manual checking activities where work products such as requirements specifications or code are examined by colleagues (peers) for defects.

A, B, and C are incorrect answers. A peer review does not find defects while static analysis finds failures (A), as both techniques can find defects but not failures. Failures are observed at runtime when executing the code. Peer reviews cannot find missing requirements whereas static analysis can (B), as both techniques cannot find missing requirements but only check conformance to existing requirements. Missing requirements can be found by other techniques such as elicitation or validation. A peer review finds failures while static analysis finds defects ©, as both techniques find defects but not failures. Failures are observed at runtime when executing the code.

The correct answer is B, as it achieves the highest equivalence partition coverage. Equivalence partitioning is a black-box test technique that divides the input domain into partitions of equivalent data from which test cases can be derived1. In this case, the input domain is the numerical grades, and the partitions are the ranges of grades that correspond to different letter grades. Option B covers all five partitions, as it includes test inputs from each range. Option A covers only four partitions, as it does not include any test input from the range above 89. Option C covers only three partitions, as it does not include any test input from the ranges above 79 and below 60. Option D covers only two partitions, as it does not include any test input from the ranges below 79. References: 1, Section 4.2.3

 I, III, and IV are part of the ISTQB code of ethics, which can be found in 2:

The Code consists of nine principles related to the behavior of and decisions made by professional software testers, including practitioners, trainers, supervisors, managers, authors, standards makers and employers.

The Code provides an ethical foundation to which individuals within teams and the team as a whole can appeal. The Code helps to define those actions that are ethically improper to request of a software tester or for a software tester to perform.

A distinguishing mark of a profession is acceptance of its responsibility to the public. The Code prescribes these as obligations of anyone claiming to be or aspiring to be a software tester.

Certified software testers shall commit themselves to making the analysis, specification, design, development, testing and maintenance of software a beneficial and respected profession. In accordance with their commitment to the health, safety and welfare of the public, software testers shall adhere to the following Eight Principles:

• PUBLIC - Certified software testers shall act consistently with the public interest.
• CLIENT AND EMPLOYER - Certified software testers shall act in a manner that is in the best interests of their client and employer consistent with the public interest.
• PRODUCT - Certified software testers shall ensure that the deliverables they provide (on the products and systems they test) meet the highest professional standards possible.
• JUDGMENT - Certified software testers shall maintain integrity and independence in their professional judgment.
• MANAGEMENT - Certified software testing managers and leaders shall subscribe to and promote an ethical approach to the management of software testing.
• PROFESSION - Certified software testers shall advance the integrity and reputation of the profession consistent with the public interest.
• COLLEAGUES - Certified software testers shall be fair to and supportive of their colleagues.
• SELF - Certified software testers shall participate in lifelong learning regarding the practice of their profession and shall promote an ethical approach to the practice of the profession.

II is not part of the code of ethics, as it is not always required or appropriate for certified software testers to sign a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) in presence of customer data.

According to the syllabus, non-functional testing is a type of software testing that verifies non-functional aspects or attributes of a software product or system, such as performance, usability, reliability, security, etc. Non-functional testing evaluates how well a system operates or behaves under certain conditions or scenarios, rather than what functions or features it provides. The answer D is correct because it best exemplifies non-functional testing. Tests which capture the time it takes to save a file are examples of performance testing, which is a type of non-functional testing that measures how fast or responsive a system is under various workloads or situations. The other answers are incorrect because they exemplify functional testing or structural testing, which are not types of non-functional testing. Tests based on the internal structure of a component or system (A) are examples of structural testing, which is a type of software testing that verifies the implementation or code of a software product or system. Tests related to ‘what’ the system should do (B) are examples of functional testing, which is a type of software testing that verifies the functionality or behavior of a software product or system. Tests which calculate overtime pay for those employees entitled to such © are also examples of functional testing, as they verify a specific function or feature of a software product or system.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 1.2.1, page 10-11.

The overall quality of the software can be increased by finding and fixing defects before releasing the software to the customers or users. A test case passes means that no defect was found in the tested functionality, which indicates a high quality. A test case fails, defect gets logged which subsequently gets fixed means that a defect was found and corrected, which improves the quality. Some tests are deferred because test environment is not available means that some functionality was not tested, which may leave some defects undetected, which reduces the quality. A bug is found but there is no corresponding test case means that a defect was found by chance or by other means than planned testing, which does not increase the quality of the testing process or the test coverage.

The correct answer is D, as it describes a task that is most likely to be performed by the tester. A tester is a person who performs testing activities such as planning, designing, executing, and evaluating tests2. Creating the detailed test execution schedule is one of these activities, as it involves defining the order and timing of test cases to be executed based on various factors such as dependencies, risks, priorities, and resources2. Option A is incorrect, as it describes a task that is most likely to be performed by the test manager. A test manager is a person who leads and manages testing activities such as establishing test policies and strategies, managing test teams and stakeholders, monitoring and controlling test progress and quality, and reporting on test results2. Developing a test strategy and test policy for the organization is one of these activities, as it involves defining the overall approach and objectives for testing at an organizational level2. Option B is incorrect, as it describes a task that is most likely to be performed by the test analyst. A test analyst is a person who supports testing activities such as analyzing requirements and risks, designing and prioritizing tests, evaluating test coverage and traceability, and reviewing work products2. Introducing suitable metrics for measuring test progress is one of these activities, as it involves defining and collecting quantitative data to monitor and control various aspects of testing such as efficiency, effectiveness, quality, and maturity2. Option C is incorrect, as it describes a task that is most likely to be performed by the test leader. A test leader is a person who coordinates testing activities such as planning and estimating tests, allocating tasks and resources, supervising test execution and evaluation, communicating with stakeholders, and resolving issues2. Promoting and advocating the test team within the organization is one of these activities, as it involves demonstrating the value and benefits of testing to other parties such as management, developers, customers, and users2. References: 2, Section 2.3

Use case testing does not find defects caused by interaction of different components is the statement that is false about use case testing. Use case testing is a technique to create test cases based on use cases, which are descriptions of how a system interacts with one or more actors (users or other systems) to achieve a specific goal or function. Use case testing can find defects caused by interaction of different components, as use cases often involve multiple components working together to provide a service or functionality to an actor2 explains use case testing as follows:

Use case testing is a technique that helps us identify test cases that exercise the whole system on a transaction by transaction basis from start to finish. It is a functional black box testing technique.

Use cases are prepared by analysts and domain experts who document the functional requirements of a system from an end-user perspective. Each use case typically has a mainstream scenario and may have alternate or exceptional scenarios that describe different paths or outcomes.

Use case testing can help to verify that all the interactions between actors and the system under test work as expected and meet the user requirements. It can also help to detect integration defects between different components or subsystems.

A, B, and D are correct statements about use case testing. Use case generally has a mainstream scenario and may have many alternate or exceptional scenarios (A), as use cases describe different paths or outcomes depending on various conditions or events. A use case can be defined at different levels of abstraction, such as user goal level, summary level, subfunction level, etc., but not at the abstract level detached from the implementation or at the system level describing a set of executed functions (B), as use cases always describe interactions between actors and systems rather than abstract concepts or functions. Each use case has preconditions which need to be met for the use case to work successfully (D), as preconditions specify what must be true before a use case can begin.

Component testing is concerned with testing the smallest bodies of software, such as functions, classes, procedures, or modules. Component testing is also known as unit testing or module testing. Feature testing is a type of functional testing that focuses on verifying a specific feature or functionality of a system. Functional testing is a type of black-box testing that verifies that the system meets its functional requirements and specifications. Subsystem testing is a type of integration testing that verifies that a group of components work together as expected. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Section 2.2

 To ensure that users can navigate to all fields on the screen does not reflect structural testing, but rather functional testing or usability testing1 . Structural testing verifies whether the software meets the specified design and code standards by measuring aspects such as code coverage, complexity, or coupling1 . The other options reflect structural testing at different levels of granularity. Option A reflects structural testing at the system level by testing all paths that users could take through the screen menu system1 . Option B reflects structural testing at the component level by ensuring that 100% decision coverage is achieved for each system component1 . Option C reflects structural testing at the component integration level by testing all branches of component calls within the application call graph

A test case is a set of preconditions, inputs, actions, expected results and postconditions developed based on test conditions. A test condition is a statement about what to test in terms of measurable coverage criteria from analysis of the test basis. A test plan is a description of the test objectives to be achieved and the means and the schedule for achieving them. A test oracle is a source to determine expected results to compare with the actual result of the system under test.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.2.1 and Glossary

Regression testing is testing of an already tested program after modification to discover any defects introduced or uncovered as a result of changes in software or its environment. Regression testing ensures that previously working functionality still works after changes are made3 defines regression testing as follows:

Regression Testing is defined as a type of software testing to confirm that a recent program or code change has not adversely affected existing features.

Regression Testing is nothing but full or partial selection of already executed test cases which are re-executed to ensure existing functionalities work fine.

I, III, IV, and V are incorrect statements about regression testing. Retesting of a fixed defect (I) is not regression testing, but confirmation testing or rework testing, which verifies that a specific defect has been resolved. Testing of new functionality in a program (III) is not regression testing, but functional testing or new feature testing, which verifies that new requirements are met by new code. Regression testing applies only to functional testing (IV) is not true, as regression testing can also apply to non-functional aspects such as performance or security. Tests that do not have to be repeatable, because they are only used once (V) are not regression testing, but exploratory testing or ad hoc testing, which are based on learning and discovery rather than predefined test cases.

Checking that at least 50% of decisions have been exercised by a test case suite is not a valid use of decision coverage, because it does not meet the minimum criterion of decision coverage, which is to exercise all possible outcomes of each decision in the software under test . Decision coverage is a technique that measures how much of the logic or branching of the software under test has been exercised by the test cases . The other options are valid uses of decision coverage. Option A is a valid use of decision coverage, because it can check that all decisions have been exercised in a single program . Option B is a valid use of decision coverage, because it can check that all decisions have been exercised in a business process . Option C is a valid use of decision coverage, because it can check that all calls from one program module to another have been made correctly .

According to the syllabus, equivalence partitioning is a technique that divides the input data into partitions that are expected to be processed in the same way by the system under test. The partitions should be disjoint, meaning that they do not overlap. The answer C is correct because 50 and 60 are in the same partition of valid inputs that will pass the test. The other answers are incorrect because they contain values from different partitions.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.2.1, page 40.

I and III are “testing general principles”. These principles state that exhaustive testing is impossible and testing can show the presence of defects but cannot demonstrate their absence. These principles reflect the limitations and objectives of testing software systems4 states these principles as follows:

Exhaustive testing is impossible: Testing everything (all combinations of inputs and preconditions) is not feasible except for trivial cases. Instead of exhaustive testing, risk analysis and priorities should be used to focus testing efforts.

Testing shows the presence of defects: Testing can show that defects are present, but cannot prove that there are no defects. Testing reduces the probability of undiscovered defects remaining in the software but, even if no defects are found, it is not a proof of correctness.

B, C, and D are incorrect answers. II and IV are not “testing general principles”. These statements are false or misleading. The defects found during the pre-release tests or the operational failures are not uniformly distributed across the system’s software modules (II), as they tend to cluster in certain areas or components. Testing is not context-independent (IV), as it depends on the specific objectives, requirements, risks, and characteristics of the system under test.

According to the syllabus, verification is the process of evaluating a product or component to determine whether it satisfies its specified requirements. Validation is the process of evaluating a product or component to determine whether it fulfills its intended use and user expectations. Verification answers the question “Are we building the product right?” while validation answers the question “Are we building the right product?” Both verification and validation involve providing objective evidence, which means factual, unbiased, and observable information that supports the evaluation. The answer D is correct because it best distinguishes the terms “validation” and “verification”. The other answers are incorrect because they either confuse the terms “validation” and “verification” or use subjective evidence, which means personal, biased, or unobservable information that does not support the evaluation.

References: [Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus], Section 1.2.1, page 10-11.

The cost of testing performed so far is not a test exit criteria, as it does not reflect the quality or completeness of the testing process. Test exit criteria are usually based on factors such as the number of unfixed defects, the confidence of testers in tested code, the test coverage achieved, and the test schedules

Event B from S2 is an invalid transition, because it does not exist in the state table. The state table shows the possible transitions between states based on events. For each state, there is a corresponding row that indicates the next state for each event. For example, for state S1, the next state for event A is S2, for event B is S3, and so on. However, for state S2, there is no next state for event B, which means that this transition is invalid

Product risk analysis is an approach to testing that aims to reduce the level of product risks and inform stakeholders of their status, starting in the initial stages of a project1. It involves the identification of product risks and the use of risk levels to guide the test process1. Product risks are uncertain situations that can affect the quality or value of the software product2. One of the factors that can influence the testing approach is the test design technique to be applied3. Test design techniques are methods to derive and select test cases based on the test objectives, test conditions, and test basis2. Decision table testing is a test design technique that is suitable for testing complex business rules that have logical conditions and outcomes2. Therefore, if the product risk analysis identifies that the complex business rules could result in costly failures, then decision table testing will be used for test case design to cover all the possible combinations of conditions and outcomes2.

The other options are not examples of how product risk analysis can influence the testing approach, because they are either not related to product risks or not based on risk levels. They are:

• Performance failures were much lower than expected, so more test analysis will be conducted in this area (B). This is not related to product risk analysis, but to test monitoring and control, which is the process of comparing actual progress against the plan and reporting the status2. Test analysis is the activity of analyzing the test basis and defining test objectives2. If the performance failures were much lower than expected, then more test execution or evaluation might be needed, not more test analysis.
• There is a lack of automation skills in the test team, so training for the automation tool will be rolled out ©. This is not related to product risk analysis, but to test management, which is the process of planning, monitoring, and controlling the test activities and resources2. Test automation is the use of software to perform or support test activities2. The lack of automation skills in the test team is a project risk, not a product risk, and it should be addressed by providing adequate training, tools, and resources for the test team2.
• There are no product risks recorded around security, so security testing will be given priority as a contingency measure (D). This is not based on risk levels, but on the absence of risk identification, which is a poor practice in product risk analysis. Security testing is a type of testing that determines whether the software protects data and maintains functionality as intended2. Product risk analysis should identify the potential security risks and assign them appropriate risk levels based on their probability and impact1. Security testing should be prioritized based on the risk levels, not on the lack of risk identification, which could lead to overlooking or underestimating the security risks1.

References:

• ISTQB Foundation Level 2018 syllabus
• Risk in Software Testing
• Risk-Based Testing
• Test Approach

Priority is an important item of information that is missing from the incident report. Priority indicates the importance or urgency of resolving the incident, based on the business needs and the impact on the stakeholders. Priority is usually assigned by the project manager or the customer, and it helps to determine the order in which incidents should be addressed. Priority may differ from severity, which indicates the degree of impact of the incident on the system or the component under test. Severity is usually assigned by the tester or the developer, and it helps to assess the risk of the incident. For example, an incident may have a high severity but a low priority, if it affects a critical function but only occurs in a rare situation. Conversely, an incident may have a low severity but a high priority, if it affects a minor function but occurs frequently or affects many users. Therefore, both priority and severity are useful information for incident management and resolution.

The other options are not essential information for the incident report, although they may be helpful or desirable in some cases. Recommendations are suggestions or proposals for resolving the incident, which may be provided by the tester, the developer, or other stakeholders. However, recommendations are not mandatory, and they may not be feasible or acceptable in some situations. Name of tester is the identifier of the person who reported the incident, which may be useful for communication or accountability purposes. However, name of tester is not critical, and it may be replaced by other identifiers, such as email address, employee number, or role. Change history is the record of the changes made to the incident report, such as status, resolution, or comments. Change history is valuable for tracking and auditing purposes, but it is not part of the initial incident report, rather it is updated as the incident progresses.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 5.3.2, p. 49-50 1; ISTQB Glossary v4.0, p. 38-39 2

 According to the syllabus, error guessing is a technique that uses testers’ experience and intuition to identify potential errors or defects in a software system. An experienced tester makes a list of potential defects and failures, and designs and runs tests to generate these failures should the defects be present in the code. The answer B is correct because it best describes a methodical approach to the error guessing technique. The other answers are incorrect because they describe other techniques, such as exploratory testing (A), checklist-based testing © and negative testing (D).

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.2.4, page 43.