ISTQB ISTQB-CTFL ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL v4.0) Exam Practice Test

To determine the optimal test execution schedule that minimizes the number of configuration switches and respects the dependencies, we start with the initial configuration, CONF1.

TC4: It has no dependencies and runs on CONF1 (initial configuration).

TC3: Depends on TC4 and runs on CONF1. Since TC4 is already executed, we can proceed with TC3.

TC2: Depends on TC4 and runs on CONF2. We switch to CONF2 after TC3.

TC1: No dependencies and runs on CONF2. Since we are already in CONF2, we can execute TC1 next.

TC5: Depends on TC1 and runs on CONF2. Since TC1 is already executed, we can proceed with TC5 without additional configuration switches.

By following this sequence (TC4, TC3, TC2, TC1, TC5), we respect the dependencies and minimize the number of configuration switches

Checklist-based testing is a technique where testers use pre-determined checklists to ensure that important aspects of a work product are evaluated. Over time, these checklists should be reviewed and updated periodically to maintain their effectiveness in detecting defects. As systems evolve, outdated checklists may miss new types of defects, thus diminishing their usefulness. Therefore, statement D is true according to the ISTQB CTFL syllabus​​.

In an incident report, essential details provide context and facilitate the investigation and resolution of the incident. The missing elements in the given incident report are:

I. Identification or configuration of the application: This detail is crucial as it specifies which version or configuration of the application is affected, helping in reproducing the issue. IV. The actions and/or conditions that came before pressing the button: Understanding the sequence of actions leading to the issue is vital for replicating and diagnosing the problem.

The name of the developer (II) and the recommendation of the developer (III) are not typically included in an incident report as they do not contribute to identifying or resolving the incident. The focus is on the incident's details, reproduction steps, and the system's state rather than on personnel or proposed solutions at this stage. Therefore, option B, which includes both I and IV, is the correct answer.

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

Experience based techniques (EBT) are techniques that use the knowledge, intuition and skills of the test engineers to design and execute tests. EBT use tests derived from the test engineers’ previous experience with similar technologies, domains, applications or systems. EBT are not based on the ability of the test engineer to implement various testing techniques, but rather on their personal judgment and creativity. EBT are not done as a second stage of testing, after non-experience-based testing took place, but rather as a complementary or alternative approach to other techniques. EBT require broad and deep knowledge in both testing and the application or technological domain, as this can help the test engineer identify potential risks, scenarios or defects. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 5, page 48-49.

The correct statement is B. According to the ISTQB CTFL syllabus, the testing quadrants help to categorize tests based on their purpose and whether they are technology-facing or business-facing, and whether they support the team or critique the product. Quadrant Q2 includes tests that are business-facing and support the team, such as automated acceptance tests produced during Behavior-Driven Development (BDD) and Acceptance Test-Driven Development (ATDD)​​ .

Quadrant Q3 includes business-facing tests that critique the product, such as exploratory testing, usability testing, and user acceptance testing. These tests are typically manual and focus on evaluating the product from a user perspective, rather than being part of a continuous integration process​​.

Quadrant Q4 includes technology-facing tests that critique the product, such as performance tests, security tests, and other non-functional tests, which can be automated but are not related to unit tests produced during TDD .

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

Statement Testing is a type of white-box testing technique where the test cases are designed based on the implementation of the software, specifically aiming to execute every statement in the code at least once. This falls under the category of structure-based testing (also known aswhite-box testing), where the internal structure of the system is used to design test cases. Therefore, option D is correct​​.

All testing levels are applicable, independent of which software development life-cycle process (V-model, iterative, incremental) is used. Testing levels are defined based on the scope and objectives of testing, not on the software development model. Component testing, integration testing, system testing and acceptance testing are common testing levels that can be applied to any software development model, as long as they are planned and executed properly. The V-model is a software development model that emphasizes the relationship between each development phase and its corresponding testing phase. Iterative and incremental models are software development models that divide the development process into smaller cycles or iterations, where each iteration produces a working version of the software that can be tested and evaluated. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 18.

The state transition diagram provided shows three distinct states:

Waiting for fingerprint

Waiting for PIN

Valid PIN/ask menu selection

Each state represents a different stage in the system's operation, with transitions based on user actions and system responses​​.

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

The other options are incorrect because:

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

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

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

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

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Test analysis involves identifying the features to be tested and deriving test conditions. It is the phase where testers analyze the test basis (e.g., requirements, specifications) to identify testable aspects of the system. Test design (A) focuses on creating test cases, test implementation (C) involves preparing the test environment, and test execution (D) runs the tests.

Boundary value analysis is a technique that tests boundary values between partitions of equivalent data. Boundary values are values at the edge of an equivalence partition or at the smallest incremental distance on either side of an edge. Boundary value analysis can be applied to both input and output values. Based on the given requirement, we can identify two input values: age and weekend. Age should be an integer of 0 or above, and weekend means Friday to Sunday inclusive. The following statement is not correct:

A) Thursday is a valid input boundary value. This statement is not correct, as Thursday is not a boundary value for the input weekend. The boundary values for the input weekend are Friday and Sunday, as they are at the edge of the equivalence partition that represents weekend days. The following statements are correct:

B) A minimum of 6 valid test cases are derived from boundary value analysis based on input age. This statement is correct, as we can derive six valid test cases based on input age by using the minimum and maximum values for each equivalence partition defined by the requirement. The equivalence partitions for input age are: under 7 (0 to 6), 7 to 13 inclusive (7 to 13), and greater than 65 (66 and above). The minimum and maximum values for each partition are: 0 and 6, 7 and 13, and 66 and any value above it.

C) $3.01 is a valid output boundary value. This statement is correct, as $3.01 is a boundary value for the output additional fee. The additional fee can have four possible values depending on the input age: $0 (for visitors aged under 7), $2.40 (for visitors aged 7 to 13 inclusive with a 20% discount), $1.50 (for visitors aged greater than 65 with a 50% discount), and $3 (for visitors aged between 14 and 65). The boundary values for the output additional fee are $0 and $3, as they are at the edge of an equivalence partition or at the smallest incremental distance on either side of an edge. Therefore, $3.01 is a valid output boundary value, as it is at the smallest incremental distance above $3.

D) 7 and 13 are boundary values for the equivalence partition including age 10. This statement is correct, as 7 and 13 are boundary values for the equivalence partition that represents visitors aged 7 to 13 inclusive. This partition includes age 10, which is an internal value within the partition. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 37-38.

The statement that refers to good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model is option D, which says that involvement of testers in work product reviews should occur as early as possible to take advantage of the early testing principle. Work product reviews are static testing techniques, in which the work products of the software development process, such as the requirements, the design, the code, the test cases, etc., are examined by one or more reviewers, with or without the author, to identify defects, violations, or improvements. Involvement of testers in work product reviews can provide various benefits for the testing process, such as improving the test quality, the test efficiency, and the test communication. The early testing principle states that testing activities should start as early as possible in the software development lifecycle, and should be performed iteratively and continuously throughout the lifecycle. Applying the early testing principle can help to prevent, detect, and remove defects at an early stage, when they are easier, cheaper, and faster to fix, as well as to reduce the risk, the cost, and the time of the testing process. The other options are not good testing practices to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, but rather specific testing practices that may or may not be applicable or beneficial for testing, depending on the context and the objectives of the testing activities, such as:

Tests should be written in executable format before the code is written and should act as executable specifications that drive coding: This is a specific testing practice that is associated with test-driven development, which is an approach to software development and testing, in which the developers write automated unit tests before writing the source code, and then refactor the code until the tests pass. Test-driven development can help to improve the quality, the design, and the maintainability of the code, as well as to provide fast feedback and guidance for the developers. However, test-driven development is not a good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, as it may not be feasible, suitable, or effective for testing in some contexts or situations, such as when the requirements are unclear, unstable, or complex, when the test automation tools or skills are not available or adequate, when the testing objectives or levels are not aligned with the unit testing, etc.

Test levels should be defined such that the exit criteria of one level are part of the entry criteria for the next level: This is a specific testing practice that is associated with sequential software development models, such as the waterfall model, the V-model, or the W-model, in which the software development and testing activities are performed in a linear and sequential order, with well-defined phases, deliverables, and dependencies. Test levels are the stages of testing that correspond to the levels of integration of the software system, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing. Test levels should have clear and measurable entry criteria and exitcriteria, which are the conditions that must be met before starting or finishing a test level. In sequential software development models, the exit criteria of one test level are usually part of the entry criteria for the next test level, to ensure that the software system is ready and stable for the next level of testing. However, this is not a good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, as it may not be relevant, flexible, or efficient for testing in some contexts or situations, such as when the software development and testing activities are performed in an iterative and incremental order, with frequent changes, feedback, and adaptations, as in agile software development models, such as Scrum, Kanban, or XP, when the test levels are not clearly defined or distinguished, or when the test levels are performed in parallel or concurrently, etc.

Test objectives should be the same for all test levels, although the number of tests designed at various levels can vary significantly: This is a specific testing practice that is associated with uniform software development models, such as the spiral model, the incremental model, or the prototyping model, in which the software development and testing activities are performed in a cyclical and repetitive manner, with similar phases, deliverables, and processes. Test objectives are the goals or the purposes of testing, which can vary depending on the test level, the test type, the test technique, the test environment, the test stakeholder, etc. Test objectives can be defined in terms of the test basis, the test coverage, the test quality, the test risk, the test cost, the test time, etc. Test objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, and they should be aligned with the project objectives and the quality characteristics. In uniform software development models, the test objectives may be the same for all test levels, as the testing process is repeated for each cycle or iteration, with similar focus, scope, and perspective of testing. However, this is not a good testing practice to be applied regardless of the chosen software development model, as it may not be appropriate, realistic, or effective for testing in some contexts or situations, such as when the software development and testing activities are performed in a hierarchical and modular manner, with different phases, deliverables, and dependencies, as in sequential software development models, such as the waterfall model, the V-model, or the W-model, when the test objectives vary according to the test levels, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing, or when the test objectives change according to the feedback, the learning, or the adaptation of the testing process, as in agile software development models, such as Scrum, Kanban, or XP, etc.References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.1.1, Testing and the Software Development Lifecycle1

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

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.2.2, Testing Policies, Strategies, and Test Approaches1

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

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.1, Test Planning1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.2, Test Monitoring and Control1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.3, Test Analysis and Design1

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

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

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

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Work Product Review, Static Testing, Early Testing, Test-driven Development, Test Level, Entry Criterion, Exit Criterion, Test Objective, Test Basis, Test Coverage, Test Quality, Test Risk, Test Cost, Test Time2

The requirement specifies that a bonus should be paid if the total amount of sales (TAS) made during the year is 300,000€ or more. The software incorrectly implements this requirement with "IF (TAS = 300,000)" instead of "IF (TAS >= 300,000)". Using boundary value analysis (BVA), which is a common technique in software testing, the three test cases provided (TC1 = 299,999, TC2 = 300,000, and TC3 = 300,001) cover the critical boundary values around the condition.

TC1 tests just below the boundary (299,999),

TC2 tests exactly at the boundary (300,000),

TC3 tests just above the boundary (300,001).

Since the software incorrectly checks for TAS equal to 300,000, only TC2 will fail because the condition is exactly met and highlights the incorrect implementation of the decision logic.

The figure depicts the life-cycle of a defect using state transition testing. State transition testing is a technique that models how a system transitions from one state to another depending on events or conditions. The figure shows six states (S0 to S5) and seven transitions (T0 to T6). The correct sequence of state transitions that follows the figure is S0->S1->S2->S3->S5->S1->S2->S3. This sequence represents the following scenario:

S0: The defect is not yet detected (initial state).

T0: The defect is detected by testing (event).

S1: The defect is reported and registered (state).

T1: The defect is assigned to a developer for fixing (event).

S2: The defect is being fixed by the developer (state).

T2: The developer fixes the defect and delivers a new version (event).

S3: The defect is verified by testing (state).

T5: The testing fails to confirm that the defect is fixed (event).

S5: The defect is rejected by testing (state).

T6: The defect is reassigned to a developer for fixing (event).

S1: The defect is reported and registered (state).

T1: The defect is assigned to a developer for fixing (event).

S2: The defect is being fixed by the developer (state).

T2: The developer fixes the defect and delivers a new version (event).

S3: The defect is verified by testing (state). The other sequences are incorrect, as they do not follow the transitions shown in the figure. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 40-41.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Configuration management (B)ensures thatversions of software and test artifactsare properly tracked, stored, and retrievable. It allows teams to:

Restoreearlier versions of software and test work products

Maintaintraceability between requirements, tests, and code

Avoid discrepancies due tomismanaged versions

(A) is incorrectbecause defect managementtracks issues but does not restore versions.

(C) is incorrectbecause change managementcontrols changes but does not track past versions.

(D) is incorrectbecause risk managementassesses risks but does not manage software versions.

Effective configuration management ensures the ability to roll back changesand maintain system stability.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Exhaustive testing (testing all input combinations) is practically impossible except in trivial cases (C). Instead, testers focus on risk-based, prioritized, and efficient test techniques. The seven principles of testing in the ISTQB syllabus highlight that exhaustive testing is infeasible, and therefore, techniques such as equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, and risk-based testing are used to optimize test coverage.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Equivalence partitioning (EP)divides input values into classes where test casesrepresent all possible valuesof each partition. The partitions in this scenario are:

≤7 (too cold → W)

8-21 (standstill → X)

22-29 (ideal → Y)

≥30 (too hot → Z)

OptionC ({7,10,25,29})covers all partitionsby selecting representative values:

7 → Too cold (W)

10 → Standstill (X)

25 → Ideal (Y)

29 → Upper boundary of ideal (Y)

Other options do not cover all partitions adequately.

Checklist-based testing involves using checklists that contain items, such as potential test conditions, that should be tested. These checklists are often based on insights into what is important to the user, potential areas where software might fail, and specific aspects that need to be tested. It provides a structured yet flexible approach to testing, ensuring key areas are covered while allowing testers to use their experience and understanding of the system. Checklist-based testing is not limited to non-functional testing but can be applied to various types of testing, including functional testing.References:

ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 4.4.5.

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

A key skill for testers is the ability to use various tools to automate repetitive tasks, enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of testing processes. This includes tools for test execution, test management,and defect tracking. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 emphasizes the importance of using tools to improve productivity and reduce manual effort in repetitive testing tasks, making this a critical skill for testers​​.

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

The other options are correct because:

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

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

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

References =

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The benefits of continuous integration include: i. Allows earlier detection and easier root cause analysis of integration problems and conflicting changes. iv. Gives the development team regular feedback on whether the code is working. These benefits help in maintaining the stability and quality of the codebase by integrating and testing changes frequently and providing quick feedback to developers​​.

Looking for defects in a system does not require ignoring system details, but rather paying attention to them and understanding how they affect the system’s quality, functionality, and usability. Ignoring system details could lead to missing important defects or testing irrelevant aspects of the system.

Identifying defects may be perceived as criticism against product, especially by the developers or stakeholders who are invested in the product’s success. However, identifying defects is not meant to be a personal attack, but rather a constructive feedback that helps to improve the product and ensure its alignment with the requirements and expectations of the users and clients.

Looking for defects in system requires professional pessimism and curiosity, as testers need to anticipate and explore the possible ways that the system could fail, malfunction, or behave unexpectedly. Professional pessimism means being skeptical and critical of the system’s quality and reliability, while curiosity means being eager and interested in finding out the root causes and consequences of the defects.

Testing is often seen as a destructive activity instead of constructive activity, as it involves finding and reporting the flaws and weaknesses of the system, rather than creating or enhancing it. However, testing is actually a constructive activity, as it contributes to the system’s improvement, verification, validation, and optimization, and ultimately to the delivery of a high-quality product that meets the needs and expectations of the users and clients.

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

Test planning involves defining the overall approach to testing, including scheduling, resources, and milestones. It is during this phase that the detailed schedule for each testing activity is determined based on estimates, resource availability, and constraints. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 outlines that test planning encompasses the creation of test plans and schedules to ensure that testing activities are properly managed and controlled​​.

Exploratory testing is an experience-based test technique where testers actively engage with the software, learning about its behavior while simultaneously designing and executing tests. According to the ISTQB CTFL syllabus, exploratory testing can be structured into sessions guided by test charters, which outline the test objectives and provide direction for the testers' exploration. This method is particularly useful in situations where test documentation is limited or where rapid feedback is needed. Thus, option B correctly describes how exploratory testing can be organized​​.

The three-point test estimation technique is a method of estimating the test effort based on three initial estimates: the most optimistic, the most likely, and the most pessimistic. The technique uses a weighted average of these three estimates to calculate the final estimate, which is also known as the expected value. The formula for the expected value is:

Expected value = (most optimistic + 4 * most likely + most pessimistic) / 6

Using the given values, the expected value is:

Expected value = (6 + 4 * 30 + 54) / 6 Expected value = 30 person hours

However, the expected value is not the only factor to consider when estimating the test effort. The technique also calculates the standard deviation, which is a measure of the variability or uncertainty of the estimates. The formula for the standard deviation is:

Standard deviation = (most pessimistic - most optimistic) / 6

Using the given values, the standard deviation is:

Standard deviation = (54 - 6) / 6 Standard deviation = 8 person hours

The standard deviation can be used to determine a range of possible values for the test effort, based on a certain level of confidence. For example, using a 68% confidence level, the range is:

Expected value ± standard deviation

Using the calculated values, the range is:

30 ± 8 person hours

Therefore, the final estimate is between 22 person hours and 38 person hours, which is option A.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 2.3.2, page 24-25; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 33.

The test pyramid concept suggests that there should be more low-level tests (unit tests) and fewer high-level tests (end-to-end tests).

As we move higher up the pyramid (e.g., from unit tests to integration tests to end-to-end tests), each test covers more production code.

Higher-level tests (like end-to-end) validate larger parts of the application, including multiple units and their interactions.

This aligns with the principle that higher-level tests provide broader coverage but are fewer in number and more expensive to run and maintain.

Equivalence classes partitioning is a technique that divides the input data and output results of a software component into partitions of equivalent data. Each partition should contain data that is treated in the same way by the component. Equivalence classes partitioning can be used to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. For the ZIP code field, there are four equivalence classes based on the given rules:

Valid ZIP code format and valid ZIP code value (e.g., 12345)

Valid ZIP code format and invalid ZIP code value (e.g., 99999)

Invalid ZIP code format and valid ZIP code value (e.g., 1234)

Invalid ZIP code format and invalid ZIP code value (e.g., ABCDE) Therefore, four test cases are required to test this field, one for each equivalence class. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 37-38.

The correct set of data for valid equivalence class partitions should include one value from each equivalence class, and no value from outside the range. Option C satisfies this condition, as it has one value from each of the four equivalence classes (50, 100, 250, 500). Option A has two values from the same equivalence class (100 and 200), option B has values outside the range (0 and 0.99), and option D has two values from the same equivalence class (1000 and 500). Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 35.

To achieve the highest level of transition coverage, one must consider all the possible transitions between the states in the given state model of the sales order software. The transitions in the sequence provided in Option B - "IN PRODUCTION -> SHIPPED -> INVOICED -> CANCELLED -> PLACED -> IN PRODUCTION" cover all the states and transitions effectively. This covers the transitions from IN PRODUCTION to SHIPPED, SHIPPED to INVOICED, INVOICED to CANCELLED, CANCELLED to PLACED, and PLACED to IN PRODUCTION, thereby maximizing the transition coverage.References:

ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 4.3.5.

Equivalence partitioning is a technique that divides the input data and output results of a software component into partitions of equivalent data. Each partition should contain data that is treated in the same way by the component. Equivalence partitioning can be used to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. Equivalence partitioning is suitable for testing the price computation, as it can identify different partitions based on the passenger type, the travelling type, the distance and the kind of transport. Equivalence partitioning is not statement coverage, which is a technique that measures how many executable statements in a source code are executed by a test suite. Statement coverage is not appropriate for testing the price computation, as it does not consider the input data or output results. Equivalence partitioning is not state transition testing, which is a technique that models how a system transitions from one state to another depending on events or conditions. State transition testing is not relevant for testing the price computation, as it does not involve any states or transitions. Equivalence partitioning is not use case testing, which is a technique that tests how users interact with a system to achieve a specific goal. Use case testing is not applicable for testing the price computation, as it does not focus on a single function or component. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 37-38.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Statement testingaims to executeevery executable statementin the source code at least once.

(D) is correctas statement testing ensuresmaximum statement execution.

(A) describes branch testing, which focuses on flow transfers.

(B) and (C) incorrectly mix decision testing and branch testing concepts.

Use case testing is a technique that helps identify test cases that exercise the whole system on a transaction by transaction basis from start to finish. Use cases are descriptions of how users interact with the system to achieve a specific goal. Use case testing is not focused on data flow, but rather on process flow. Use case testing can be performed by professional testers, customers or end users, depending on the context. Use case testing does not require the test cases to be designed by customers or end users, but rather by anyone who has access to the use case specifications. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 4, page 36.

Matching the descriptions with the test techniques:

Black-box test techniques use the external description of the software, including requirements, use cases, and user stories.

White-box test techniques use the internal structure of the software system, including software architecture and code.

Black-box test techniques can reveal deviations from the requirements as they validate the external behavior of the software.

Both black-box and white-box test techniques are applicable to functional and non-functional testing.

Experience-based test techniques rely on the knowledge and intuition of developers, users, and other stakeholders​(ISTQB Main Web)​.References:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 PDF

A typical test plan includes various elements, such as resource requirements, test completion criteria, and suspension/resumption criteria. However, the list of product risks that have not been fully mitigated is generally not included in the test plan but rather in the risk management documentation.

The test plan focuses on planning and executing tests, including resource allocation and defining criteria for test suspension and resumption.

While risk management is crucial, unmitigated risks are typically documented in risk logs or separate risk management plans.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Maintenance testing is carried outwhenever changes are made to an existing system, including enhancements, defect fixes, and system migrations (C). It is not limited to adaptive maintenance (A) and is needed even when no defects are reported (B). Test cases are essential to validate fixes and prevent regressions (D).

In the given code snippet, the premium is increased by 1500 if the age is less than 30. Therefore, at the boundary value of age 29, the premium should be 2500 + 1500 = 4000, and at age 30, the premium should remain at its initial value of 2500, as the condition is no longer met. Option B correctly reflects this with 29, 4000 and 30, 2500 as the boundary value and the expected results, respectively.

An oracle is a mechanism or source that can provide the expected result for a given test input or situation. Sometimes old version of a product can be used as an oracle, if it is assumed that the old version behaves correctly for the test cases that are executed on the new version. This is also known as back-to-back testing. Oracles do not help in reproducing the irreproducible bugs, as they only provide the expected results, not the actual results. Oracles are not derived from the design, but from the requirements or specifications. Oracles cannot be generated automatically using data generators, as data generators only provide test inputs, not test outputs. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 9.

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

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

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

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

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.1, Test Planning1

ISTQB®Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.2, Test Monitoring and Control1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.3, Test Analysis and Design1

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

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

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabusv4.0, Chapter 2.1.6, Test Closure1

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

In software testing terminology, a failure is an observable deviation of the software from its expected behavior. A defect (or bug) is the cause of the failure in the software's code. In this case, the observed slowdown is the failure, while the underlying memory leak in the application code is the defect causing this failure. This distinction is clearly outlined in the ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0, which differentiates between failures (observable issues) and defects (underlying issues in the code)​​.

Acceptance criteria for user stories often include detailed specifications about data definitions, such as the format, allowed values, and default values for a data item. This helps ensure that the developed feature meets the expected requirements and provides a clear understanding for both developers and testers on what needs to be validated. Therefore, statement B is true as per the ISTQB CTFL syllabus​​.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:State transition testing validatesvalid and invalid state transitionsbased on defined rules.

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

Other options follow valid sequences according tostate transition rules.

In the context of software testing, the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 differentiates between "validation" and "verification" based on their respective focuses in the software development lifecycle. Verification is the process of evaluating a system or component to determine whether the products of a given development phase satisfy the conditions imposed at the start of that phase. In simpler terms, verification is about checking the product against the specified requirements to ensure it was built correctly. Validation, on the other hand, involves evaluating a system or component during or at the end of the development process to determine whether it meets specified requirements for its intended use. This means validation is about ensuring the product fulfills its intended use and meets the needs of the user.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0:ISTQB Official Website

ISTQB Foundation Level Resources v4.0:ASTQB Resources

Problems in defining the right requirements is not a product risk, but rather a project risk. A product risk is a risk that affects the quality or performance of the software product itself, such as poor usability, failure-prone functionality, security vulnerabilities, compatibility issues, etc. A project risk is a risk that affects the management or delivery of the software project itself, suchas unrealistic schedule, insufficient resources, unclear scope, changing requirements, etc. The other options are examples of product risks, as they relate to the software product’s characteristics or features. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 12.

Non-functional testing includes testing of both technical and non-technical quality characteristics. Non-functional testing is the process of testing the quality attributes of a system, such as performance, usability, security, reliability, etc. Non-functional testing can be applied at any test level and can use both black-box and white-box test techniques. Non-functional testing can cover both technical aspects, such as response time, throughput, resource consumption, etc., and non-technical aspects, such as user satisfaction, accessibility, compliance, etc. Therefore, option B is the correct answer.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 1.3.1, page 13; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 40.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Theratio-based estimation methodrelies on historical relationships betweendevelopment and testing effort.

Using the given5:3 ratio:

Thus, the correct answer is270 person-days (D).

(A) and (C) are incorrectas they overestimate the effort.

(B) underestimates the testing effort based on the ratio.

Ratio-based estimationhelps allocate resources effectively based on past project data.

Configuration management of testware is a critical aspect of maintaining the integrity and traceability of test assets throughout the testing lifecycle. The main benefit of configuration management is to ensure that all testware items, such as test cases, test scripts, test data, and test results, are systematically identified, version controlled, and tracked for changes in relation to each other.

Option C accurately describes this benefit. By applying configuration management principles to testware, teams can manage changes to test assets efficiently, ensuring that the testware remains consistent, up-to-date, and aligned with the version of the software under test. This control mechanism facilitates the reproducibility of tests, enhances the reliability of testing activities, and supports traceability from requirements through to defects.

Options A, B, and D describe other aspects of test management and testing processes but do not capture the core benefit of configuration management of testware, which is centered on the systematic control and tracking of testware items.

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

Defect clustering is a testing principle that states that a small number of modules contain most of the defects detected during pre-release testing, or are responsible for most of the operational failures. Defect clustering can be explained by Pareto’s principle (also known as the 80-20 rule), which states that approximately 80% of the problems are found in 20% of the modules. Defect clustering suggests a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, as it implies that more effort should be allocated to test the modules that have shown high defect density or criticality. Pesticide paradox is another testing principle that states that if the same tests are repeated over and over again, eventually they will no longer find any new defects. Pesticide paradox suggests a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but not based on defect clustering, but rather on test diversity and coverage. Early testing is a testing principle that states that testing activities should start as early as possible in the software development life cycle and should be focused on defined objectives. Early testing does not suggest a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but rather a proactive approach to prevent defects from occurring or propagating. Absence-of-errors fallacy is a testing principle that states that finding and fixing defects does not help if the system built is unusable and does not fulfill the users’ needs and expectations. Absence-of-errors fallacy does not suggest a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but rather a focus on quality attributes and user requirements. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 1, page 9-10.

A typical entry criterion for testing is the availability of testable requirements. Testable requirements provide a basis for designing and executing test cases. Without clear and testable requirements, it is challenging to determine what needs to be tested and to create effective test cases. Entry criteria ensure that the necessary preconditions are met before testing begins, which helps in conducting efficient and effective testing.

References:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 5.1.3, "Entry and Exit Criteria."

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:TheAgile Testing Quadrantsframework categorizes tests based on theirpurpose and audience:

Quadrant 1 (Q1): Technology-facing tests (unit and component tests).

Quadrant 2 (Q2): Business-facing tests supporting development (e.g., BDD tests).

Quadrant 3 (Q3):Business-facing tests that critique the system (B).

Includesusability testing, exploratory testing, and UATto ensure software meets user expectations.

Quadrant 4 (Q4): Technology-facing tests that critique the system (e.g., performance, security testing).

Option B correctly defines Q3since it focuses onevaluating the user experience, exploring the system, and validating business expectations.

A software bug can cause harm to a company by directly affecting its operations, reputation, user satisfaction, and financials. Option D, "When calculating the final price in a shopping list, the price of the last item is not added," describes a defect that directly impacts the core functionality of a financial transaction, potentially leading to financial loss and customer dissatisfaction. This can have severe implications for the company's credibility and revenue. Options A, B, and C describe bugs that, while potentially annoying, do not have the same direct impact on the company's core operations and financial integrity as option D.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Acceptance criteria8states thatthe system should charge the user on the first business day of the following month. However, thetest cycle only verified monthly payments for over a year, without confirming whether payments were processedspecifically on the first business day.

(B) is incorrectbecause the test validatedmonthly and annual payment options.

(C) is incorrectbecause not all criteria were fully validated.

(D) is incorrectbecause OTP verification (6) was tested as part of registration.

Ensuringtimely execution of payments(Criteria 8) requires additional validation.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:A defect report should contain relevant details to help developersreproduce and fix the defect efficiently. The essential elements include:

Test object & environment (A)– To ensure reproducibility.

Title & summary (B)– For quick identification.

Expected vs. actual results (D)– To describe the discrepancy.

Thestructure of the test team (C)is irrelevant for defect tracking and resolution.

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

1RhT: a 4-character password that is valid

rSp53: a 5-character password that is valid

3N3e10: a 6-character password that is valid

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

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

aB11: a 4-character password that is valid

Pq1ZZab: a 7-character password that is valid

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

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

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

For executive-level employees, a test summary report should be concise and focus on high-level information. It typically includes a summary of defects categorized by priority or budget. Executives are generally interested in the overall status and the impact on critical business objectives rather than detailed technical information. The report should provide an overview of the most important aspects of testing, such as key issues, test progress, and any risks or concerns that could affect project outcomes.References:

ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 5.3.1.

Statement D is correct. According to the ISTQB CTFL syllabus, both black-box test techniques (which focus on testing without internal knowledge of the application) and experience-based test techniques (which rely on testers' experience and intuition) can be applied to both functional and non-functional testing. Functional testing is concerned with what the system does, whereas non-functional testing looks at how the system performs under certain conditions. These techniques are versatile and can be employed to address both these aspects​​.

Test Management tools are designed to support the planning, execution, and monitoring of the testing process. They provide features for managing test cases, test runs, tracking defects, and reporting on testing activities. However, the statement in option C describes Test Management tools as monitoring and reporting on the system's behavior during testing activities, which is not accurate. Test Management tools focus on the testing process itself rather than on the behavior of the system under test.

Test data preparation tools (A) indeed create and manage test data for use during test execution.

Test execution tools (B) automate the execution of test cases and the comparison of actual outcomes against expected results.

Test comparators (D) are tools that compare actual outcomes with expected outcomes, highlighting discrepancies.

Therefore, option C is the correct answer as it inaccurately describes the function of Test Management tools.

The statement that "static testing increases development costs and time" is NOT correct. Static testing actually helps to reduce development costs and time by identifying defects early in the development process before dynamic testing is performed. Early detection of defects reduces the cost and effort required to fix them and prevents the propagation of defects to later stages, thus reducing overall testing and development costs.

References:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 3.1.2, "The Value of Static Testing."

Good traceability between the test basis and test work products provides several advantages: i.Analyzing the impact of changes:Traceability allows for easy identification of which parts of the test work products will be affected by changes in the requirements or design, facilitating impact analysis. iv.Making testing auditable:Traceability ensures that there is a clear connection between the requirements and the test cases, which makes the testing process auditable and provides evidence that all requirements have been tested​​.

A correct list of boundary values for the P input should include the minimum and maximum values of the valid range (15 and 350), as well as the values just below and above the boundaries (14 and 351). Boundary value analysis is a test design technique that involves testing the values at or near the boundaries of an input domain or output range, as these values are more likely to cause errors than values in the middle. Option B satisfies this condition, as it has all four boundary values (14, 15, 350, 351). Option A has two values from the same equivalence class (1000 and 99999), option C has two values outside the range (999 and 100000), and option D has no boundary values at all. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 34.

The key difference between a peer review of code and static analysis of code using a tool lies in their approaches and scope. A peer review is a manual inspection of the code by peers or colleagues, focusing not only on the technical aspects of the code but also on other elements such as design, compliance with standards, and maintainability. Peer reviews can identify defects, suggest improvements, and ensure that the code adheres to best practices and team standards.

On the other hand, static analysis is an automated process performed by tools designed to analyze the code without executing it. These tools can detect potential issues such as syntax errors, vulnerabilities, and code smells based on predefined rules and patterns. While static analysis is technically focused, it lacks the broader perspective that human reviewers can provide, such as evaluating the code's maintainability or adherence to project-specific standards. Therefore, static analysis targets the code technically, whereas peer review encompasses a wider range of aspects, making option B the correct answer.

A key characteristic of informal reviews is low cost. Informal reviews are a type of review that does not follow a formal process or have any formal documentation. Informal reviews are usually performed by individuals or small groups of peers or colleagues who have some knowledge or interest in the product under review. Informal reviews can be done at any time and for any purpose, such as checking for errors, clarifying doubts, sharing ideas, etc. Informal reviews have low cost, as they do not require much time, effort, or resources to conduct. The other options are not key characteristics of informal reviews. Kick-off meeting is a characteristic of formal reviews, such as inspections or walkthroughs. Kick-off meeting is a meeting that is held before the review process starts, where the roles and responsibilities of the participants are defined, the objectives and scope of the review are agreed, and the logistics and schedule of the review are planned. Individual preparation is a characteristic of formal reviews, such as inspections or walkthroughs. Individual preparation is an activity that is performed by the reviewers before the review meeting, where they examine the product under review and identify any issues or questions that need to be discussed or resolved during the review meeting. Metrics analysis is a characteristic of formal reviews, such as inspections or walkthroughs. Metrics analysis is an activity that is performed after the review process is completed, where the data and results of the review are collected and analyzed to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the review, as well as to identify any improvement actions or lessons learned forfuture reviews. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 9.

The statement "Early and frequent feedback helps to avoid requirements misunderstanding" is true. Early feedback from stakeholders, through reviews and other static testing techniques, helps clarify requirements and ensures that any misunderstandings are addressed promptly. This practice aligns with Agile principles and contributes to developing software that meets user needs more accurately.

References:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 2.1.1, "The Influence of Development Models on Testing" and Section 3.2.1, "The Advantages of Early Feedback."

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

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

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

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

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

Exploratory testing involves simultaneous test design and execution and is guided by a test charter, which outlines what needs to be tested, how it should be tested, and what to look for. This technique is typically conducted within predefined time periods, known as time-boxing, which allows testers to explore a system, understand its functionalities, and identify potential issues without detailed documentation or prior test case planning. The key aspects of exploratory testing include flexibility, adaptability, and the ability to respond to system behavior during testing.References:

ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 4.4.2.

Cost can be regarded as an exit criterion for testing, because it is a factor that affects the profitability and feasibility of the software product. Testing is an investment that aims to improve the quality and reliability of the software product, but it also consumes resources, such as time, money, and human effort. Therefore, testing should be planned and executed in a way that balances the cost and benefit of testing activities. Having cost as an exit criterion helps to avoid spending too much money on testing, which mayresult in an unprofitable product or a loss of competitive advantage. Cost can also help to prioritize and focus the testing efforts on the most critical and valuable features and functions of the software product. However, cost should not be the only exit criterion for testing, as it may not reflect the true quality and risk level of the software product. Other exit criteria, such as defect rate, test coverage, user satisfaction, etc., should also be considered and defined in the test plan.

The other options are incorrect, because they either deny the importance of cost as an exit criterion, or they make false or unrealistic assumptions about the cost of testing. Option B is incorrect, because the financial value of product quality can be estimated, for example, by using cost-benefit analysis, return on investment, or cost of quality models. Option C is incorrect, because going by cost as an exit criterion does not necessarily constrain the testing project or help achieve the desired quality level. Cost is a relative and variable factor that depends on the scope, complexity, and context of the software product and the testing project. Option D is incorrect, because the cost of testing can be measured effectively, for example, by using metrics, such as test effort, test resources, test tools, test environment, etc.

Test automation allows you to produce tests that are less subject to human errors, as they can execute predefined test scripts or test cases with consistent inputs, outputs, and expected results. Test automation can also reduce the manual effort and time required to execute repetitive or tedious tests, such as regression tests, performance tests, or data-driven tests. Test automation does not demonstrate the absence of defects, as it can only verify the expected behavior of the system under test, not the unexpected or unknown behavior. Test automation does not avoid performing exploratory testing, as exploratory testing is a valuable technique to discover new information, risks, or defects that are not covered by automated tests. Test automation does not increase test process efficiency by facilitating management of defects, as defect management is a separate activity that involves reporting, tracking, analyzing, and resolving defects, which may or may not be related to automated tests. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.3.1, Test Automation1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test Automation2

State transition testing is a black-box testing technique where test cases are designed to cover states and transitions of a state machine.

Given the state model with the following transitions:

PLACED -> IN PRODUCTION

IN PRODUCTION -> CANCELLED

IN PRODUCTION -> SHIPPED

SHIPPED -> INVOICED

INVOICED -> CANCELLED

CANCELLED -> PLACED

To cover all transitions at least once, we need to create a sequence that covers all six transitions.

Option A: IN PRODUCTION -> CANCELLED -> PLACED -> IN PRODUCTION -> CANCELLED -> PLACED- Misses SHIPPED -> INVOICED and INVOICED -> CANCELLED transitions.

Option B: IN PRODUCTION -> SHIPPED -> INVOICED -> CANCELLED -> PLACED -> IN PRODUCTION- Covers all transitions.

Option C: PLACED -> IN PRODUCTION -> SHIPPED -> CANCELLED ​(ISTQB not-for-profit association)​​(Udemy)​sses INVOICED -> CANCELLED transition.

Option D: PLACED -> CANCELLED -> PLACED -> CANCELLED -> PLACED -> IN PRODUCTION -> CANCELLED- Misses SHIPPED -> INVOICED and INVOICED -> CANCELLED transitions.

Given these,Option Bcovers all the transitions【6†source】【9†source】.

References:

Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0

10Sample Exams ISTQB Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0

Boundary Value Analysis (BVA) is a software testing technique in which tests are designed to include values at the boundaries. The concept is to focus on the boundaries since errors tend to occur at the edges of input ranges rather than in the middle.

Given the problem statement:

Up to $100.00 = 2%

$100.01 to $500.00 = 4%

$500.01 to $1,000.00 = 5%

Above $1,000.00 = 7%

Two-point boundary value analysismeans testing the two boundaries of each range.

For each range:

The boundaries for "Up to $100.00" would be $100.00 and $100.01.

The boundaries for "$100.01 to $500.00" would be $100.00 and $500.00.

The boundaries for "$500.01 to $1,000.00" would be $500.00 and $1,000.00.

The boundaries for "Above $1,000.00" would be $1,000.00 and $1,000.01.

Now, let's examine the options:

A. $5.00, $100.00, $499.99, $1,000.00, $1,000.01

Missing $100.01 and $500.01.

B. $100.00, $100.01, $100.02, $500.00, $999.99

Covers $100.00, $100.01, $500.00, $1000.00, and $1000.01.

C. $100.00, $500.00, $1,000.00, $1,000.01

Missing $100.01 and $500.01.

D. $5.00, $100.00, $500.00, $1,000.01

Missing $100.01 and $500.01.

Given the options,Bprovides the highest boundary coverage​(ISTQB not-for-profit association)​​(Udemy)​.

References:

Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0

10 Sample Exams ISTQB Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0

This answer is correct because shift-left in testing is an approach that aims to perform testing activities as early as possible in the software development lifecycle, in order to find and fix defects faster and cheaper, and to improve the quality of the software product. Continuous integration is a practice that supports shift-left in testing, as it involves integrating and testing the software components frequently, usually several times a day, using automated tools and processes. Continuous integration can reduce the time between the introduction of a defect and its detection, thereby reducing the cost to fix it and the risk of accumulating defects that could affect the functionality or performance of the software product. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.3, Section 3.2.1.3

Debugging the software to find the reason for defects is not a common objective of testing, but rather a task of development or maintenance. Debugging is a process of locating and fixing errors in the software code, while testing is a process of finding and reporting defects in the software behavior or quality. Testing does not aim to fix defects, but rather to provide information on their existence and impact. The other options are common objectives of testing. Finding defects in the software is one of the main objectives of testing, as it helps to improve the quality and reliability of the software. Preventing defects is another objective of testing, as it helps to avoid rework and reduce costs and risks. Providing information on the status of the system is another objective of testing, as it helps to support decision making and risk management. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 3.

 If a program got 100% decision coverage in a test, then it is guaranteed that every executable statement is covered. Decision coverage (also known as branch coverage) is a type of structural coverage (also known as white-box coverage) that measures how many decision outcomes have been exercised by a test suite. A decision outcome is a possible result of a decision point (such as an if-then-else statement) in a program’s code. Decision coverage requires that each decision point has both true and false outcomes executed at least once by a test suite. Decision coverage implies statement coverage, which is another type of structural coverage that measures how many executable statements have been executed by a test suite. Statement coverage requires that each executable statement is executed at least once by a test suite. Therefore, if a program got 100% decision coverage in a test, then it also got 100% statement coverage in a test, which means that every executable statement is covered. The other options are not guaranteed to be true if a program got 100% decision coverage in a test. Every output equivalence class has been tested and every input equivalence class has been tested are not guaranteed to be true if a program got 100% decision coverage in a test, because equivalence classes are based on functional requirements or specifications, not on code structure or logic. Equivalence classes are used in specification-based testing (also known as black-box testing), which is a type of testing that does not consider the internal structure or implementation of the system under test. Decision coverage is used in structure-based testing (also known as white-box testing), which is a type of testing that considers the internal structure or implementation of the system under test. Therefore, achieving 100% decision coverage does not imply achieving 100% equivalence class coverage. The “dead” code has not been covered is not guaranteed to be true if a program got 100% decision coverage in a test, because dead code (also known as unreachable code) is code that can never be executed due to logical errors or design flaws. Dead code can reduce readability and maintainability of the code, as well as increasecomplexity and size. Decision coverage does not account for dead code, as it only considers the decision outcomes that are possible to execute. Therefore, achieving 100% decision coverage does not imply that the dead code has not been covered. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 36.

An incident is any event that occurs during testing that requires investigation. An incident report is a document that records the details of an incident. The next step the tester should take prior to recording the deviation is to try to recreate the incident before reporting. This can help confirm that the incident is reproducible and not caused by a random or external factor. This can also help gather more information about the incident, such as the steps to reproduce it, the expected and actual results, the severity and priority of the incident, or any screenshots or logs that can illustrate the incident. Trying to identify the code fragment causing the problem is not the next step the tester should take prior to recording the deviation, as this is a debugging activity that is usually performed by developers after receiving the incident report. Sending an email to the developer and not reporting the bug is not the next step the tester should take prior to recording the deviation, as this is an informal and unstructured way of communicating incidents that can lead to confusion, inconsistency or loss of information. Reporting the incident as is without any further action is not the next step the tester should take prior to recording the deviation, as this can result in incomplete or inaccurate incident reports that can hamper the investigation and resolution of incidents. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 3, page 32-33.

The principle of early testing is applicable to all recognized software development models, including sequential, iterative, and incremental models. Starting test activities early in the lifecycle helps in identifying and addressing defects as soon as possible, which can save time and costs by preventing defects from propagating to later stages of development. This proactive approach enhances the overall quality and efficiency of the software development process.Reference:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 1.3

Good testing practice dictates that each test level (e.g., unit testing, integration testing, system testing) should have distinct test objectives aligned with the phase of the software development lifecycle it addresses. This ensures that testing is effective and relevant at each stage. According to the ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0, establishing clear test objectives that are consistent with the development phase helps in achieving specific goals and improving the overall quality of the software product​​.

In a planning poker session, if there is a significant difference in the estimations, it indicates that there may be misunderstandings or different perspectives on the complexity of the user story. According to the agile principles, the team should discuss these differences to reach a common understanding. The goal is to ensure that all team members have a shared understanding of the user story's scope and complexity before finalizing the estimate​​.

The fundamental testing process includes activities that are directly related to the planning, preparation, execution, and evaluation of tests, as well as the closure activities of the testing phase. Option D, "Build release and maintenance," falls outside the scope of the fundamental testing process as it relates more to software development and operations rather than specific testing activities. Options A, "Archiving automation code," B, "Test status reporting," and C, "Test process improvement," are all activities that can be part of or associated with the fundamental testing process. Archiving automation code is part of test closure, test status reporting is part of test monitoring and control, and test process improvement can be an outcome of test closure activities.

To achieve 100% statement coverage, we need to design test cases that ensure every statement in the given pseudo-code is executed at least once. Analyzing the pseudo-code, we notice that there are conditions based on two variables: Gender and Age. To cover all statements, we need to consider the paths that lead to each assignment of the Shoe Size variable.

Gender = Boy, Age <= 3 (Shoe Size assignment is not reached, but the condition is evaluated)

Gender = Boy, Age > 3 AND Age < 5 (Shoe Size = 1)

Gender = Boy, Age >= 5 AND Age < 7 (Shoe Size = 2)

Gender != Boy, Age <= 3 (Again, Shoe Size assignment is not reached, but the condition is evaluated)

Gender != Boy, Age > 3 AND Age < 5 (Shoe Size = 0)

Gender != Boy, Age >= 5 AND Age < 7 (Shoe Size = 1)

However, upon closer inspection, we see that tests 1 and 4 do not contribute to statement coverage as they do not lead to a Shoe Size assignment. Therefore, we only need 4 test cases to achieve 100% statement coverage, making option B the correct answer.

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

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

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Different test levels (unit, integration, system, acceptance) have specific objectives while sometimes overlapping to ensure comprehensive testing (D). Option A contradicts shift-left principles, B encourages late testing (which is ineffective), and C incorrectly assumes that all development activities require direct test actions.

One of the primary objectives of testing is to ensure that the software or system being tested meets all regulatory requirements. This is crucial in many industries where compliance with laws and standards is mandatory. According to the ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0, testing aims to evaluate the quality of the software product and verify that it complies with specified requirements, including regulatory requirements​​.

Testware is a term that refers to all artifacts produced during the testing process, such as test plans, test cases, test scripts, test data, test results, defect reports, etc. The following statements about testware are correct:

II) All the testware should be subject to Configuration Management. Configuration management is a process that establishes and maintains consistency among work products throughout their life cycle. Configuration management applies to all testware, as it helps ensure their quality and consistency, track their changes and defects, control their versions and access rights, and link them to other artifacts.

III) The testware at the end of the project should be transferred to the organization responsible for maintenance. Maintenance testing is testing performed on a software product after delivery to correct defects or improve performance or other attributes. Maintenance testing requires testware from previous testing activities or phases, such as test cases, test data, test results, etc. Therefore, the testware at the end of the project should be transferred to theorganization responsible for maintenance testing, such as support team or maintenance team. The following statements about testware are incorrect:

I) When closing the test activities, all the testware resources can be uninstalled and released. This statement is incorrect, as some testware resources may still be needed for future testing activities or phases, such as maintenance testing or regression testing. Therefore, when closing the test activities, some testware resources should be archived and stored for future use, while others can be uninstalled and released.

IV) The developers are responsible for the correct installation of the testware. This statement is incorrect, as the testers are responsible for the correct installation of the testware. The testers should ensure that they have access to all necessary testware resources and that they are installed and configured properly before starting the test execution. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 6, page 58-61.

Being part of the support team means that the testers are closer to the customer perspective, which is an advantage for testing, as they can better understand the user needs and expectations, and identify more realistic scenarios and risks. However, being part of the support team also means that they have less independence in deciding what and how to test, as they may be influenced by the customer’s preferences or requests, which could compromise the objectivity and effectiveness of testing. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 6.

The ISTQB CTFL syllabus identifies several causes for defects in software. One prominent reason, as highlighted in the curriculum, is the pressure and rush to meet tight deadlines, which can lead to insufficiently reviewed or tested code being moved into further stages of testing or production. This scenario describes rushing to meet a deadline as a potential cause for defects because it may compromise the thoroughness of code development and testing.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 1.4.1 "Why is Testing Necessary?".

A correct list of boundary values for the P input should include the minimum and maximum values of the valid range (15 and 350), as well as the values just below and above the boundaries (14 and 351). Boundary value analysis is a test design technique that involves testing the values at or near the boundaries of an input domain or output range, as these values are more likely to cause errors than values in the middle. Option B satisfies this condition, as it has all four boundary values (14, 15, 350, 351). Option A has only two boundary values (14 and 351), option C has only two boundary values (15 and 350), and option D has no boundary values at all. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 34.

 The V-model is a software development life cycle model that defines four test levels that correspond to four development phases: component (unit) testing with component design, integration testing with architectural design, system testing with system requirements, and acceptance testing with user requirements. The V-model emphasizes the importance of verifying and validating each phase of development with a corresponding level of testing, and ensuring that the test objectives, test basis, and test artifacts are aligned and consistent across the test levels. Therefore, an organization that wants to follow the V-model cannot do away with integration testing, as it would break the symmetry and completeness of the V-model, and compromise the quality and reliability of the software or system under test. Integration testing is a test level that aims to test the interactions and interfaces between components or subsystems, and to detect any defects or inconsistencies that may arise from the integration of different parts of the software or system. Integration testing is essential for ensuring the functionality, performance, and compatibility of the software or system as a whole, and for identifying andresolving any integration issues early in the development process. Skipping integration testing would increase the risk of finding serious defects later in the test process, or worse, in the production environment, which would be more costly and difficult to fix, and could damage the reputation and credibility of the organization. Therefore, the correct answer is D.

The other options are incorrect because:

A. It is not allowed as organizations can decide on the test levels to do depending on the context of the system under test. While it is true that the choice and scope of test levels may vary depending on the context of the system under test, such as the size, complexity, criticality, and risk level of the system, the organization cannot simply ignore or skip a test level that is defined and required by the chosen software development life cycle model. The organization must follow the principles and guidelines of the software development life cycle model, and ensure that the test levels are consistent and coherent with the development phases. If the organization wants to have more flexibility and adaptability in choosing the test levels, it should consider using a different software development life cycle model, such as an agile or iterative model, that allows for more dynamic and incremental testing approaches.

B. It is not allowed because integration testing is not an important test level and can be dispensed with. This statement is false and misleading, as integration testing is a very important test level that cannot be dispensed with. Integration testing is vital for testing the interactions and interfaces between components or subsystems, and for ensuring the functionality, performance, and compatibility of the software or system as a whole. Integration testing can reveal defects or inconsistencies that may not be detected by component (unit) testing alone, such as interface errors, data flow errors, integration logic errors, or performance degradation. Integration testing can also help to verify and validate the architectural design and the integration strategy of the software or system, and to ensure that the software or system meets the specified and expected quality attributes, such as reliability, usability, security, and maintainability. Integration testing can also provide feedback and confidence to the developers and stakeholders about the progress and quality of the software or system development. Therefore, integration testing is a crucial and indispensable test level that should not be skipped or omitted.

C. It is not allowed because integration testing is a very important test level and ignoring it means definite poor product quality. This statement is partially true, as integration testing is a very important test level that should not be ignored, and skipping it could result in poor product quality. However, this statement is too strong and absolute, as it implies that integration testing is the only factor that determines the product quality, and that ignoring it would guarantee a poor product quality. This is not necessarily the case, as there may be other factors that affect the product quality, such as the quality of the requirements, design, code, and other test levels, the effectiveness and efficiency of the test techniques and tools, the competence and experience of the developers and testers, the availability and adequacy of the resources and environment, the management and communication of the project, and the expectations and satisfaction of the customers and users. Therefore, while integration testing is a very important test level that should not be skipped, it is not the only test level that matters, and skipping itdoes not necessarily mean definite poor product quality, but rather a higher risk and likelihood of poor product quality.

References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 4.0, 2018, Section 2.3, pages 16-18; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, pages 38-39; ISTQB CTFL 4.0 - Sample Exam - Answers, Version 1.1, 2023, Question 104, page 36.

 The following should be included in a test status report: total number of open and closed defects, actual effort spent, and number of executed, failed, and blocked tests. A test status report is a document that provides information on the results and status of testing activities for a given period or phase. A test status report should include information that is relevant, accurate, and timely for the intended audience and purpose. Some of the information that should be included in a test status report are: total number of open and closed defects, which can indicate the defect trend and defect density of the software product; actual effort spent, which can indicate the productivity and efficiency of the testing process; number of executed, failed, and blocked tests, which can indicate the test progress and test coverage of the software product. The following should not be included in a test status report: estimation details, defect reports, and impact analysis. Estimation details are not part of a test status report, but rather part of a test plan or a test estimation document. Estimation details provide information on the expected time, resources, and costs for testing activities, not on the actual results or status of testing activities. Defect reports are not part of a test status report, but rather separate documents that provide detailed information on individual defects found during testing. Defect reports include information such as defect description, defect severity, defect priority, defectstatus, defect resolution, etc. Defect reports can be referenced or summarized in a test status report, but not included in full. Impact analysis is not part of a test status report, but rather part of a risk assessment or prioritization process. Impact analysis provides information on the potential effects or consequences of a change or a defect on the software product or project. Impact analysis can be used to evaluate the amount or scope of testing to be performed, but not to report the results or status of testing activities. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 141.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Independent testers provide a fresh perspective and are more likely to identify failures that developers might overlook due to their familiarity with the software (C). Independent testing helps avoid cognitive biases, improves defect detection, and enhances the overall quality assurance process. While A and D touch on related concepts, they do not directly define the benefit as well as C does. Option B highlights a potential challenge rather than a benefit.

Entry and exit criteria are used to determine when to start and stop testing, respectively.

Entry Criteria:

These are conditions that should be met before testing begins.

Examples:

2. The test automation tool has been installed and properly configured

4. The performance test environment has been set-up and is available

5. The user stories have proper acceptance criteria defined

Exit Criteria:

These are conditions that should be met before testing concludes.

Examples:

1. A defined level of code coverage has been achieved

3. The number of unresolved defects is within the predefined limit

6. The testing budge​(ISTQB not-for-profit association)​ spent and the project sponsor bears the risk of not testing any further

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, these criteria help in effectively managing the testing process【6†source】.

References:

Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0

ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 4.0 (2023)

This answer is correct because error guessing is a test design technique where the experience and intuition of the tester are used to anticipate where errors, defects and failures have occurred or are likely to occur, and to design test cases to expose them. Error guessing can be based on factors such as the complexity of the system or component, the known or suspected weaknesses of the system or component, the previous history of defects, or the common types of errors in the domain or technology. Error guessing can be used as a complementary technique to other more systematic or formal techniques, or when there is insufficient information or time to apply them. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.5

System testing is a level of testing performed to evaluate the behavior and quality of a whole software product or system. System testing can include various types of testing, such as:

I) Usability testing: A type of testing that evaluates how easy, efficient and satisfying it is to use the software product or system from the user’s perspective.

II) Requirements based scenarios testing: A type of testing that verifies that the software product or system meets its specified requirements or user stories by executing realistic scenarios or workflows. System testing does not include the following types of testing, as they are more suitable for lower levels of testing, such as unit testing or integration testing:

III) Testing parts of the code in isolation: A type of testing that verifies the functionality and quality of individual software components or units by isolating them from other components or units.

IV) Correct order of parameters in API calls: A type of testing that verifies the functionality and quality of software components or units that communicate with each other through application programming interfaces (APIs) by checking the correct order and format of parameters in API calls. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 2, page 20-21; Chapter 4, page 34-35.