ISTQB-CTFL ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Questions and Answers

Traceability primarily refers to the ability to link test cases back to their sources in the test basis, such as requirements or design documents. This linkage allows for the determination of coverage, impact analysis, and maintaining consistency across test documentation. However, traceability does not directly enable the application of experience-based test techniques, which are more about using the tester's intuition and experience. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 does not state that traceability enables experience-based techniques, making option B the false statement​​.

The correct answer can be derived by applying the given rules to each case:

A is ST certified and has 12 years of testing experience, which is more than 10 years. Therefore, A does not match any of the rules and the result is unknown.

B is not ST certified and has 7 years of testing experience, which is between 5 and 10 years. Therefore, B matches rule 3 and the result is limited access.

C is not ST certified and has 3 years of testing experience, which is less than 5 years. Therefore, C does not match any of the rules and the result is unknown. Verified References: This question does not require any external references, as it is based on logical reasoning.

A dynamic analysis tool is a tool that performs analysis of a software product based on its behavior during execution. A dynamic analysis tool can monitor various aspects of a program’s run-time performance, such as memory usage, CPU load, response time, or resource leaks. A dynamic analysis tool can monitor the allocation, use and de-allocation of memory during run-time of a program, which can help detect defects such as memory leaks, buffer overflows, or memory corruption. A dynamic analysis tool cannot provide support for traceability of tests, test results and incidents to source documents, as this is a function of a test management tool. A dynamic analysis tool cannot execute programs step-by-step in order to reproduce failures and find corresponding defects, as this is a function of a debugging tool. A dynamic analysis tool cannot provide support for release of baselines consisting of configuration items, as this is a function of a configuration management tool. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 6, page 56-57.

In a formal review process, the recorder's role is typically responsible for documenting the findings of the review team, including action items, decisions, and recommendations. This ensures that there is an accurate record of what was discussed and agreed upon, facilitating follow-up and continuous improvement. Therefore, statement C is correct as per the ISTQB CTFL syllabus​​.

In formal reviews, the scribe's role is to collate potential defects and other findings during the review process. This position is crucial as it ensures all observations and defects are recorded accurately, facilitating efficient analysis and resolution of issues identified during the review.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.2.4 "Roles and Responsibilities in a Formal Review".

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0, the life cycle of a defect typically follows a sequence from its discovery to its closure. In the provided figure, it starts with S0 (New), moves to S1 (Assigned), then to S2 (Resolved), followed by S3 (Verified). If the defect is not fixed, it can be Re-opened (S5) and goes back for verification (S3). Once verified, it is Closed (S4). References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Section 1.4.3, Page 17.

The correct test execution sequence should consider both the dependencies between the requirements and their priorities. According to the diagram, the sequence begins with R2 (P1) as it is a prerequisite for R3 (P4). Then R1 (P3) can be tested. R3 follows as it depends on R2. Next, R7 (P4) should be tested before R6 (P3) and R5 (P2), as indicated by their dependencies. Finally, R4 (P1) and R8 (P1) can be tested. Therefore, the best sequence is R2, R1, R3, R7, R6, R5, R4, R8. Reference: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.1.5

Test exit criteria are the conditions or requirements that must be met before testing can be concluded. Test exit criteria are usually defined in the test plan and agreed by the stakeholders. Test exit criteria can be based on various factors, such as test coverage, defect status, quality level, risk level, etc. Test schedules would be the least likely to be used as the basis for test exit criteria, because test schedules are not directly related to the quality or performance of the software product, but rather to the time or resources allocated for testing. Test schedules can be used as the basis for test entry criteria, which are the conditions or requirements that must be met before testing can start. The other options are more likely to be used as the basis for test exit criteria. Cost of testing performed so far can be used as a basis for test exit criteria, because it can indicate the return on investment or the cost-benefit ratio of testing. Confidence of testers in tested code can be used as a basis for test exit criteria, because it can reflect the level of satisfaction or assurance of the testers about the quality or reliability of the software product. Number of unfixed defects can be used as a basis for test exit criteria, because it can indicate the level of risk or impact of the remaining defects on the software product. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 13.

Traceability is the ability to trace the relationships between the items of the test basis, such as the requirements, the design, the risks, etc., and the test artifacts, such as the test cases, the test results, the defects, etc. Traceability can provide various benefits for the testing process, such as improving the test coverage, the test quality, the test efficiency, and the test communication. However, not all the statements given are true about the value of maintaining traceability between the test basis and test work products. The statement that is not true is option C, which says that test objectives should be the same for all test levels, although the number of tests designed at various levels can vary significantly. This statement is false, because test objectives are the goals or the purposes of testing, which can vary depending on the test level, the test type, the test technique, the test environment, the test stakeholder, etc. Test objectives can be defined in terms of the test basis, the test coverage, the test quality, the test risk, the test cost, the test time, etc. Test objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, and they should be aligned with the project objectives and the quality characteristics. Test objectives should not be the same for all test levels, as different test levels have different focuses, scopes, and perspectives of testing, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing. The other statements are true about the value of maintaining traceability between the test basis and test work products, such as:

Traceability can be useful for assessing the impact of a change to a test basis item on the corresponding tests: This statement is true, because traceability can help to identify which tests are affected by a change in the test basis, such as a new requirement, a modified design, a revised risk, etc., and to determine the necessary actions to update, re-execute, or re-evaluate the tests. Traceability can also help to estimate the effort, the cost, and the time needed to implement the change and to verify its impact on the software system.

Traceability can be useful for determining how many test basis items are covered by the corresponding tests: This statement is true, because traceability can help to measure the test coverage, which is the degree to which the test basis is exercised by the test cases. Traceability can help to identify which test basis items are covered, partially covered, or not covered by the tests, and to evaluate the adequacy, the completeness, and the effectiveness of the testing process. Traceability can also help to identify the gaps, the overlaps, or the redundancies in the test coverage, and to prioritize, optimize, or improve the test cases.

Traceability can be useful to support the needs required by the auditing of testing: This statement is true, because traceability can help to provide evidence, documentation, and justification for the testing activities, results, and outcomes. Traceability can help to demonstrate that the testing process follows the standards, the regulations, the policies, and the best practices that are applicable to the software system, the project, or the organization. Traceability can also help to verify that the testing process meets the expectations, the needs, and the satisfaction of the users and the stakeholders. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

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

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

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

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

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Traceability, Test Basis, Test Artifact, Test Objective, Test Level, Test Coverage, Test Quality, Test Risk, Test Cost, Test Time2

Decision tables are used to model complex decision logic by considering different combinations of conditions and actions. Based on the given decision table for prescribing drug therapy:

Column 1 and Column 3 both result in the same actions (prescribing Amoxicillin).

These columns can be merged because the actions taken do not depend on whether the patient is taking anticoagulant therapy (both are 'T' for this condition).

Thus, combining these columns simplifies the decision table without losing any information.

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.

The following statements about risk-based testing are correct:

II) Tests should be prioritized to find tie critical detects as early as possible. Risk-based testing involves prioritizing tests based on risk level, which reflects both the likelihood and impact of defects or failures. Tests with higher risk level should be executed earlier than tests with lower risk level, in order to find and fix critical defects as soon as possible.

III) Non-testing activities may also help to reduce risk. Risk-based testing does not only involve testing activities, but also other activities that can help mitigate risks, such as reviews, inspections, audits, simulations or prototyping.

Static analysis involves analyzing the software's code, design, and structure without executing the program. It can uncover various types of defects, including security vulnerabilities (II) and non-conformance to specifications and standards (III). However, static analysis cannot replace dynamic testing (I), which involves executing the software to observe its behavior under various conditions. Dynamic testing can identify failures that static analysis cannot, such as those related to runtime issues and interaction between different parts of the software. Statement IV is false because static analysis does not detect failures; it detects defects. Failures are observed when the software is executed, which is beyond the scope of static analysis.

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 Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.6, Test Closure1

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

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 may result 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.

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

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

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

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

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

A test case is a set of input values, execution preconditions, expected results and execution postconditions, developed for a particular objective or test condition. A test case is a sequence of actions for test execution that can be followed by a tester or a test automation tool. A test case is specified during the test implementation activity, which is the activity that prepares the testware needed for test execution. A test case does not include actual results, as these are obtained during test execution and compared with the expected results. A test case does not describe items or events to test, as these are derived from the test basis during the test analysis activity. A test case is not derived during the test design activity, as this is the activity that specifies the test conditions or objectives that need to be tested. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 3, page 23-24; Chapter 4, page 34.

The activities of checking test results and logs against specified coverage criteria, assessing the level of component or system quality based on test results and logs, and determining whether more tests are needed fall under the category of test monitoring and control. This phase involves ongoing assessment and adjustment of the test activities to ensure they meet the test objectives and quality goals​​.

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

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

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.

A defect report is a document that records the details of a defect found during testing. A defect report typically contains the following items:

Identifier: A unique identifier for the defect report

Summary: A concise summary of the defect

Description: A detailed description of the defect, including the steps to reproduce it, the expected and actual results, and any relevant screenshots or logs

Severity: The degree of impact that the defect has on the system

Priority: The level of urgency for resolving the defect

Status: The current state of the defect, such as new, open, resolved, closed, etc.

Resolution: The action taken to resolve the defect, such as fix, workaround, reject, etc. Out of these items, the one that is not needed to specify in a defect report is how to fix the defect. How to fix the defect is a technical solution that is usually determined by the developer who is assigned to resolve the defect. How to fix the defect is not part of the defect report, but rather part of the code change or patch that is delivered to fix the defect. The other items are needed to specify in a defect report, as they provide essential information for identifying, tracking and resolving defects. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 3, page 32-33.

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 decision table is a technique that shows combinations of inputs and/or stimuli (causes) with their associated outputs and/or actions (effects). A decision table consists of four quadrants: conditions (inputs), actions (outputs), condition entries (values) and action entries (results). The following statements about decision tables are true:

II. Test cases derived from decision tables can be used for component tests. Decision tables can be used to test components that have multiple inputs and outputs that depend on logical combinations of conditions. Decision tables can help cover all possible combinations or scenarios in a systematic way.

III. Several test cases can be selected for each column of the decision table. A column of a decision table represents a unique combination of condition entries and action entries. Several test cases can be selected for each column by varying other input values or expected results that are not part of the decision table. The following statements about decision tables are false:

I. Generally, decision tables are generated for low risk test items. Decision tables are not related to risk level, but rather to complexity level. Decision tables are generated for test items that have complex logic or multiple conditions and actions that need to be tested.

IV. The conditions in the decision table represent negative tests generally. The conditions in the decision table represent both positive and negative tests, depending on whether they are valid or invalid inputs for the test item. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 4, page 42-43.

Boundary value analysis is not an experience-based technique, but rather a specification-based technique (also known as black-box technique). Experience-based techniques are techniques that rely on the tester’s knowledge and intuition to derive and select test cases based on their experience with similar systems, technologies, domains, risks, etc. Some examples of experience-based techniques are error guessing, exploratory testing, fault attack, checklist-based testing, etc. Specification-based techniques are techniques that rely on the tester’s analysis and interpretation of the requirements or specifications of the system under test to derive and select test cases based on some criteria or rules. Some examples of specification-based techniques are equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, decision table testing, state transition testing, etc. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 31.

The IEEE 829 standard is a widely used specification for test documentation, but it is not mandatory or universal. Most test documentation regimes follow this spec to some degree, with changes done to fit a specific situation or organization. The standard does not require any approval from management, marketing or development for any deviation, nor does it depend on the type of project (military or consumer market). The standard also does not guarantee high quality test documentation regimes, as it only provides a general outline and format, not the actual content or quality criteria. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 16.

Achieving full code coverage does not guarantee that the component or system is fully tested or free of defects. Code coverage metrics indicate the extent to which the source code has been tested, but they do not account for the quality of the tests or whether all possible scenarios have been considered. Other types of testing, including functional, performance, and security testing, are necessary to ensure comprehensive testing. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 highlights that while high code coverage is beneficial, it does not equate to complete testing​​.

This answer is correct because a walkthrough is a type of review where the author of the work product leads the review process and explains the work product to the reviewers. The reviewers are not required to prepare for the review in advance, and the main objective of the walkthrough is to establish a common understanding of the work product and to identify any major defects or issues. A walkthrough is usually informal and does not follow a defined process or roles. In this case, the review for a high-level architectural document written by a software architect matches the characteristics of a walkthrough. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.4.2.2

Using equivalence partitioning, the investment ranges are divided into four partitions:

R500 to R10,000 (10%)

R10,001 to R50,000 (11%)

R50,001 to R100,000 (12%)

R100,001 to R500,000 (13%)

Thus, the minimum number of test cases required to cover all valid equivalence partitions for calculating the interest is 4​​.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metrics can be collected during and at the end of testing activities to assess various aspects including progress against the planned schedule and budget, the current quality of the test object, the adequacy of the test approach, and the effectiveness of the test activities with respect to the objectives. Collecting these metrics helps in understanding the overall performance and quality of the testing process​​.

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 whole team approach, often advocated in Agile methodologies, emphasizes collaboration and collective responsibility among all team members. This approach enhances the relationships within the team and improves overall collaboration, which in turn benefits the project's success. According to the ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0, the whole team approach fosters better communication and cooperation, leading to more effective problem-solving and higher-quality outcomes​​.

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."

The acceptance criteria associated with a user story are the conditions that must be met for the user story to be considered done and to deliver the expected value to the user. They are often written in different formats, such as rule-oriented, scenario-oriented, or table-oriented, depending on the nature and complexity of the user story. They represent an aspect of a user story referred to as confirmation, which is one of the so called “3 C’s” of user stories. The other two aspects are card and conversation. Card refers to the concise and informal description of the user story, usually following the template: “As a [role], I want [feature], so that I can [benefit]”. Conversation refers to the ongoing dialogue between the stakeholders and the team members to clarify and refine the user story and its acceptance criteria. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 3.2.2, page 35-36; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 37.

A decision table is a technique that should be used to cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an Automated Teller Machine (ATM). A decision table shows combinations of inputs and/or stimuli (causes) with their associated outputs and/or actions (effects). A decision table consists of four quadrants: conditions (inputs), actions (outputs), condition entries (values) and action entries (results). A decision table can be used to test components that have multiple inputs and outputs that depend on logical combinations of conditions. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify three input conditions: the bank card is valid, the PIN code is correct, and money is available in the user’s account. We can also identify four output actions: the card is rejected, the ATM asks for another PIN code, the ATM asks for another amount, and the ATM dispenses the money. A decision table can show all possible combinations of these conditions and actions in a systematic way.

Use case based testing is not a technique that can cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an ATM. Use case based testing is a technique that verifies that a software product or system meets its specified requirements or user stories by executing realistic scenarios or workflows. Use case based testing can be used to test components that have complex or dynamic interactions with users or other systems. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify several use cases, such as withdraw money, check balance, transfer money, etc. Each use case can have one or more scenarios that describe the steps and outcomes of the interaction. However, use case based testing may not cover all possible combinations of input conditions, as some scenarios may be omitted or overlooked.

Boundary value analysis is not a technique that can cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an ATM. 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 used to test components that have input values that can be divided into partitions of equivalent data. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify boundary values for the input amount, such as the minimum and maximum amount allowed by the system or the user’s account. However, boundary value analysis may not cover all possible combinations of input conditions, as some conditions may not have boundary values or may not be related to input values.

Equivalence class partitioning is not a technique that can cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an ATM. Equivalence class 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 class partitioning can be used to test components that have input values that can be divided into partitions of equivalent data. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify equivalence partitions for the input amount, such as valid amount (within the range allowed by the system and the user’s account) and invalid amount (outside the range allowed by the system or the user’s account). However, equivalence class partitioning may not cover all possible combinations of input conditions, as some conditions may not be related to input values or may have more than two partitions. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 34-46.

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​​.

Test exit criteria are the conditions that must be fulfilled before concluding a particular testing phase. These criteria act as a checkpoint to assess whether we have achieved the testing objectives and are done with testing1. Test exit criteria are typically defined in the test plan document, which is one of the outputs of the test planning phase. The test plan document describes the scope, approach, resources, and schedule of the testing activities. It also identifies the test items, the features to be tested, the testing tasks, the risks, and the test deliverables2. According to the ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, the test plan document should include the following information related to the test exit criteria3:

The criteria for evaluating test completion, such as the percentage of test cases executed, the percentage of test coverage achieved, the number and severity of defects found and fixed, the quality and reliability of the software product, and the stakeholder satisfaction.

The criteria for evaluating test process improvement, such as the adherence to the test strategy, the efficiency and effectiveness of the testing activities, the lessons learned and best practices identified, and the recommendations for future improvements.

Therefore, the test plan document is the most appropriate test document to find the test exit criteria described. The other options, such as test design specification, project plan, and requirements specification, are not directly related to the test exit criteria. The test design specification describes the test cases and test procedures for a specific test level or test type3. The project plan describes the overall objectives, scope, assumptions, risks, and deliverables of the software project4. The requirements specification describes the functional and non-functional requirements of the software product5. None of these documents specify the conditions for ending the testing process or evaluating the testing outcomes. References = ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Entry and Exit Criteria in Software Testing | Baeldung on Computer Science, Entry And Exit Criteria In Software Testing - Rishabh Software, Entry and Exit Criteria in Software Testing Life Cycle - STLC [2022 Updated] - Testsigma Blog, ISTQB® releases Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0 (CTFL).

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.

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.

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.

When developers are trying to identify and remove a defect, they need clear information on what went wrong and what was expected. The items that will be most useful to developers in this context are the expected results (item 1), the actual results (item 2), and a description of the defect including steps to reproduce, screenshots, and database dumps (item 5). This information helps developers understand the nature of the defect and provides the necessary details to reproduce and diagnose the issue effectively.References:

ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 5.5.1.

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.

Statement B contradicts the general principles of testing, because running the same test set more often will not increase the chances of finding new defects, unless there are some changes in the system or environment that affect the test results. Running different test sets with different inputs, outputs or conditions would be more effective in finding new defects. Statements A, C and D are consistent with the general principles of testing. Statement A states that most defects are found in a small subset of a system’s modules, which is true according to the defect clustering principle. Statement C states that testing is better if it starts at the beginning of a project, which is true according to the early testing principle. Statement D states that how testing is done, is based on the situation in a particular project, which is true according to the context-dependent testing principle. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, pages 4-6.

The question is about selecting the correct test values for x based on equivalence partitioning. Equivalence partitioning is a software test design technique that divides the input data of a software unit into partitions of equivalent data from which test cases can be derived. In this case, the given equivalence classes are:

(x \leq -100)

(-100 < x < 100)

(100 \leq x < 1000)

(x \geq 1000)

Option D provides a value from each of these partitions:

For (x \leq -100), it gives -1000.

For (-100 < x < 100), it gives -100 and 100.

For (100 \leq x < 1000), it gives 500.

For (x \geq 1000), it gives 1500.

So, option D covers all four given equivalence classes with appropriate values.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 documents available at ISTQB and ASTQB.

1: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 38

2: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 39

: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 40

This question asks for a non-functional aspect of testing the download process of a mobile application. Option A, "It was easy to locate, download and install the application," refers to usability, which is a non-functional quality attribute. Non-functional testing involves testing the system's attributes, such as usability, performance, reliability, etc., rather than specific behaviors or functions. Options B, "The application was correctly downloaded," C, "The application created an installation log file in a given folder," and D, "The application installed only after the user's approval," describe functional aspects, focusing on what the software does rather than how it performs or is experienced by the user.

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

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

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

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

Pair reviews are informal and typically involve two people reviewing the work product together, often in an informal setting. Walkthroughs are more formal and aim to educate stakeholders and evaluate the product, serving the dual purpose of improving the product and training participants. Technical reviews have a strong focus on improving the product's quality, often involving technical stakeholders. Inspections are the most formal review type and are aimed primarily at detecting defects.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.2.3 "Review Types".

Static testing is a form of testing that does not involve executing the software, but rather analyzing it for defects, errors, or violations of standards. Static testing can be applied to any software development product, including requirements specifications, design specifications, code, test cases, test plans, user manuals, etc. Static testing can be done by using various techniques such as reviews, inspections, walkthroughs, checklists, static analysis tools, etc. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 7.

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.

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

Type of customer

Amount of sale

Bonus percentage

Basic

G1

3%

Basic

G2

5%

Basic

G3

7%

Premium

G1

5%

Premium

G2

7%

Premium

G3

10%

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

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

A test status report is a document that provides a snapshot of the testing activities and their progress during a particular period. It should include information about any impediments encountered during the test execution and the actions taken to resolve them, which helps stakeholders understand the challenges and how they were addressed​​ .

Option B describes an activity related to test completion rather than ongoing status reporting. Option C is incorrect because the structure and contents of the report may vary based on the audience's needs. Option D, while important, is not the primary purpose of a test status report, which focuses more on the current status and impediments.

One of the common risks associated with test automation tools is the underestimation of the effort required to maintain test scripts. Test scripts can become outdated or broken due to changes in the application, requiring significant effort to update and maintain them. This risk is highlighted in the ISTQB CTFL syllabus under the discussion of the benefits and risks of test automation.

References: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section on test tools and automation.

Independent testing offers several advantages, such as unbiased testing and detection of different defects. However, a drawback is that an independent test team may be isolated from the development team and project team. This can lead to communication gaps, reduced collaboration, and a lack of understanding of the project context.

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) syllabus v4.0, an independent test team may not have the same level of understanding of the system as the development team, leading to potential issues in communication and integration​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​.

References:

Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0

ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 4.0 (2023)

A failure is an event in which a component or system does not perform a required function within specified limits. A failure is observable by the software users or other stakeholders. A failure is caused by one or more defects in the software. In this case, the software not being able to meet the desired response time is an example of a failure, as it deviates from the stated requirement and affects the user experience. It is not a defect, which is a flaw in the software that causes the failure. It is not an error, which is a human action that produces an incorrect result. It is not a non-defect, as it clearly violates a specified requirement. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 1, page 4.

State transition testing is a black-box testing technique used to analyze the behavior of a system by examining the transitions between different states in response to events. In state transition testing, a state table or diagram is used to represent the states of a system and the transitions between these states triggered by events.

Option D is correct because in state transition testing, all transitions between states should be explicitly shown in the state table. This includes valid transitions that the system is expected to make under normal operation and, where relevant, invalid transitions that should be tested to ensure the system handles unexpected or erroneous inputs gracefully. The state table provides a comprehensive view of how the system should behave, making it possible to create tests that cover all defined transitions.

As a functional tester, you should open a defect report providing detailed information on which devices and by running which tests you observed the issue. A defect report is a document that records the occurrence, nature, and status of a defect detected during testing, and provides information for further investigation and resolution. A defect report should include relevant information such as the defect summary, the defect description, the defect severity, the defect priority, the defect status, the defect origin, the defect category, the defect reproduction steps, the defect screenshots, the defect attachments, etc. Opening a defect report is a good practice for any tester who finds a defect in the software system, regardless of the type or level of testing performed. The other options are not recommended, because:

The issue is related to performance efficiency, not functionality, but that does not mean that as a functional tester, you should not open any defect report as all the functional tests passed. Performance efficiency is a quality characteristic that measures how well the software system performs its functions under stated conditions, such as the response time, the resource utilization, the throughput, etc. Performance efficiency is an important aspect of the user experience, especially for web applications that run on different devices and networks. Even if the functional tests passed, meaning that the software system met the functional requirements, the performance issue observed on some devices could still affect the user satisfaction, the usability, the reliability, and the security of the software system. Therefore, as a functional tester, you have the responsibility to report the performance issue as a defect, and provide as much information as possible to help the developers or the performance testers to investigate and resolve it.

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​​.

The critical information missing from the defect report is a detailed description of the defect to enable reproduction. A clear and concise description of the steps taken to reproduce the defect is essential for developers to understand the context and to be able to replicate the issue in their environment. Without this information, it can be challenging to diagnose and fix the defect. The ISTQB CTFL syllabus emphasizes the importance of providing all necessary details in a defect report to facilitate effective communication and resolution.

References: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 5.5, "Defect Management."

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)

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.

Testing is necessary for various reasons, such as:

To detect defects and failures that may affect the quality, performance, reliability or security of a software product or system

To verify that a software product or system meets its specified requirements, expectations and standards

To validate that a software product or system fulfills its intended purpose and satisfies its stakeholders’ needs

To provide information and feedback about the status and risks of a software product or system

To comply with regulations or contractual obligations that mandate testing for certain types of software products or systems The following statements describe some reasons why testing is necessary:

A) The customer decided that 100% branch coverage shall be achieved. This is a reason why testing is necessary, as it reflects a contractual obligation or a quality standard that requires testing to measure and achieve a certain level of code coverage.

C) For avionics and pharmaceutical systems software testing is mandated by standards. This is a reason why testing is necessary, as it reflects a regulation or a compliance requirement that mandates testing for certain types of software products or systems that have high safety or security risks.

D) The risks associated with delivering the system are far higher than the cost of testing. This is a reason why testing is necessary, as it reflects a risk-based approach that considers testing as an investment to reduce the probability and impact of potential failures or defects. The following statement does not describe a reason why testing is necessary:

B) The acquisition of test automation tools was based on the assumption that it will be used m all projects. This is not a reason why testing is necessary, as it reflects a business decision or a resource allocation that does not justify the need or purpose of testing. Test automation tools are not always suitable or beneficial for all projects, and testing can be performed with or without test automation tools. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 1, page 5-6.

A defect is a flaw in a component or system that can cause the component or system to fail to perform its required function. A defect can cause harm to the end customer, the company, or both, depending on the impact and severity of the failure. In this case, the defect in the code causes the system to lock down accounts that have an overdraft higher than $1000, instead of $10,000. This can cause harm to the end customer, as they may lose access to their funds and face inconvenience or financial difficulties. This can also cause harm to the company, as they may lose customer trust and satisfaction, face legal issues or complaints, or incur additional costs for fixing the defect and restoring the accounts. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 1, page 3-4.

A correct reason to apply test automation is when there are a lot of repetitive testing tasks. Test automation is the use of software tools or scripts to perform or support testing activities, such as test case execution, test result comparison, test data generation, etc. Test automation can be beneficial when there are a lot of repetitive testing tasks that need to be performed frequently or consistently, such as regression testing, performance testing, load testing, etc. Test automation can help to save time and effort, increase reliability and accuracy, and improve coverage and efficiency of testing. The other options are not correct reasons to apply test automation. When a new test automation tool is launched is not a reason to apply test automation, but rather a factor for choosing a test automation tool. When it is easy to automate is not a reason to apply test automation, but rather a factor for evaluating the feasibility of test automation. When it is cheap to buy test automation tools is not a reason to apply test automation, but rather a factor for estimating the cost and benefit of test automation. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 10.

In maintenance testing, the relationship between impact analysis and regression testing is that the impact analysis is used to evaluate the amount of regression testing to be performed. Maintenance testing is a type of testing that is performed on an existing software product after it has been delivered or deployed, in order to ensure that it still meets its requirements and functions correctly after a change or a modification. Maintenance testing can be triggered by various reasons, such as corrective maintenance (fixing defects), adaptive maintenance (adapting to new environments), perfective maintenance (improving performance), preventive maintenance (avoiding future problems), etc. Impact analysis is a technique that is used to assess the extent and nature of changes introduced by maintenance activities on the software product or project. Impact analysis helps to identify which parts of the software product are affected by the changes, which parts need to be modified or updated accordingly, which parts need to be retested or verified for correctness or compatibility, etc. Regression testing is a type of testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after a change or a modification. Regression testing helps to detect any side effects or unintended consequences of maintenance activities on the software product’s functionality or quality. Regression testing can be performed at various levels and scopes depending on the impact analysis results. Therefore, in maintenance testing, impact analysis is used to evaluate the amount of regression testing to be performed. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 20.

Test design is one of the fundamental activities in software testing, focusing on how tests will be structured and what strategies will be employed. As per the ISTQB syllabus, identifying appropriate test execution and automation tools is a task closely associated with test design activities because it directly influences how tests will be conducted, managed, and executed efficiently. This activity involves deciding on the tools that will best support the testing goals and requirements.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 4.4 "Test Design Techniques".

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

The set of test inputs that achieve the relatively highest equivalence partition coverage for grading students is option D: 69, 79, 80, 89, 90. This set effectively tests the boundaries between each grade category, ensuring that the grading system accurately transitions from one grade to another at the correct thresholds​ (ISTQB Main Web)​.References:

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

This scenario is using a walkthrough review type and a perspective-based review technique. In a walkthrough, the author of the document leads the meeting and it typically includes a meeting leader and a scribe, as described. This type of review is informal, focuses on discussion, and often involves scenario-based reading of the document to understand different user perspectives​ (ISTQB Main Web)​.References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole team approach involves collaboration among all team members, including testers, developers, and business representatives, to achieve quality goals. However, this approach may not be suitable in situations where a high level of test independence is required. Test independence is essential in cases where unbiased testing is critical, such as in regulated environments or where high-risk systems are involved. This is because team members might unintentionally influence each other's work, leading to potential bias in testing outcomes​​.

The relationship between impact analysis and regression testing in maintenance testing is that impact analysis is used to evaluate the amount of regression testing to be performed. Maintenance testing is a type of testing that is performed on an existing software product after it has been delivered or deployed, in order to ensure that it still meets its requirements and functions correctly after a change or a modification. Maintenance testing can be triggered by various reasons, such as corrective maintenance (fixing defects), adaptive maintenance (adapting to new environments), perfective maintenance (improving performance), preventive maintenance (avoiding future problems), etc. Impact analysis is a technique that is used to assess the extent and nature of changes introduced by maintenance activities on the software product or project. Impact analysis helps to identify which parts of the software product are affected by the changes, which parts need to be modified or updated accordingly, which parts need to be retested or verified for correctness or compatibility, etc. Regression testing is a type of testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after a change or a modification. Regression testing helps to detect any side effects or unintended consequences of maintenance activities on the software product’s functionality or quality. Regression testing can be performed at various levels and scopes depending on the impact analysis results. Therefore, in maintenance testing, impact analysis is used to evaluate the amount of regression testing to be performed. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 20.

The Testing Quadrants model helps Agile teams by categorizing different types of tests and their purposes. This differentiation helps test managers explain the testing strategy to all stakeholders, ensuring everyone understands the scope and objectives of each test type. This model aids in planning, executing, and tracking testing activities across different quadrants, making it easier to align with stakeholders' expectations and project goals. Reference: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.1.7

Component integration tests are designed to verify the interactions and interfaces between integrated components. These tests should be carried out after component testing (where individual components are tested in isolation) but before system testing (where the entire system is tested as a whole). This ensures that any issues arising from the integration of components are identified and resolved early in the testing process, making option D the correct answer​​.

The test leader is the person who is responsible for planning, monitoring, and controlling the test activities and resources in a test project. The test leader should have the best knowledge of the test objectives, scope, risks, resources, schedule, and quality criteria. The test leader should also be aware of the test automation criteria, such as the execution frequency, the test support, the team education, the roles and responsibilities, and the devs and testers collaboration1. Based on these factors, the test leader can decide which tests are suitable for automation and which are not, and prioritize them accordingly. The test leader can also coordinate with the test automation engineers, the developers, and the stakeholders to ensure the alignment of the test automation strategy with the test project goals and expectations. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1, Page 152; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Page 403; ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Chapter 6, Section 6.1.1, Page 514; Top 8 Test Automation Criteria You Need To Fulfill - QAMIND1

Project risks are the uncertainties or threats that may affect the project objectives, such as scope, schedule, cost, and quality. According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, some of the factors that contribute to project risks are:

Skill and staff shortages: This factor refers to the lack of adequate or qualified human resources to perform the project tasks. This may result in delays, errors, rework, or low productivity.

Problems in defining the right requirements: This factor refers to the difficulties or ambiguities in eliciting, analyzing, specifying, validating, or managing the requirements of the project. This may result in misalignment, inconsistencies, gaps, or changes in the requirements, affecting the project scope and quality.

Contractual issues: This factor refers to the challenges or disputes that may arise from the contractual agreements between the project parties, such as clients, suppliers, vendors, or subcontractors. This may result in legal, financial, or ethical risks, affecting the project delivery and satisfaction.

The other options are not correct because they list factors that contribute to PRODUCT risks, not project risks. Product risks are the uncertainties or threats that may affect the quality or functionality of the software product or system. Some of the factors that contribute to product risks are:

Poor software quality characteristics: This factor refers to the lack of adherence or compliance to the quality attributes or criteria of the software product or system, such as reliability, usability, security, performance, or maintainability. This may result in defects, failures, or dissatisfaction of the users or stakeholders.

Software does not perform its intended functions: This factor refers to the deviation or discrepancy between the expected and actual behavior or output of the software product or system. This may result in errors, faults, or malfunctions of the software product or system.

References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Testing, Section 1.5: Risks and Testing, Pages 14-16.

Debugging is the process of finding, analyzing and removing the causes of failures in software. Debugging is not considered part of testing, but rather a development activity that can involve testing. Debugging is not intended to find as many defects as possible, but rather to fix the specific failure that was observed. Debugging is usually performed by developers, not by test engineers. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 1, page 6.

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.

Communication from testers about defects, test results, and other test information should emphasize the benefits of testing such as increased quality and reduced risk. This positive framing helps in reinforcing the value of testing and ensuring stakeholders understand the contribution of testing to the overall project success​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​.References:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0: https://istqb-main-web-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/ISTQB_CTFL_Syllabus-v4.0.pdf

Risk management is a process that identifies, analyzes, evaluates and mitigates risks in a software project. Risks are factors that may negatively affect the quality, schedule, budget or scope of a software project. The main goals of risk management in a software project are to reduce the probability of undesired situations and to reduce the effect of potential impact. This can be achieved by applying various strategies, such as avoidance, transfer, reduction or acceptance. Risk management does not aim to increase the success probability for the project regardless of costs, as this may not be feasible or realistic. Risk management does not aim to increase focus on preventative processes and to increase satisfaction for the testers, as these are secondary or indirect outcomes. Risk management does not aim to control contractual problems and minimize the impacts of company policies, as these are specific types of risks that may not apply to all projects. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 2, page 14-15.

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)​​.

White-box test techniques are test design techniques where the test cases are derived from the internal structure of the software, including its architecture, code, and logical flow. These techniques involve the tester having knowledge of the internal workings of the software to create test cases that ensure all possible paths and conditions are tested. This is in contrast to black-box test techniques, which focus on input-output behavior without considering the internal structure. Reference: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 4.3

The absence-of-errors fallacy, as explained in the ISTQB syllabus, is the erroneous belief that having fewer defects found in testing equates to a system being more successful upon release. This misconception can lead stakeholders to undervalue thorough testing. Answer C illustrates this fallacy perfectly: assuming that because few defects were found, the system will be successful, neglects the many other factors that contribute to system success, including user satisfaction and fit-for-purpose.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 1.1.5 "Absence-of-errors fallacy".