ISTQB-CTFL Questions and Answers

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.

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.

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.

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

The other options are incorrect because:

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

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

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

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

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

Restoreearlier versions of software and test work products

Maintaintraceability between requirements, tests, and code

Avoid discrepancies due tomismanaged versions

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

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

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

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

One possible risk of introducing test automation is that the selected tool may not be fit-for-purpose. This means that the tool might not meet the specific needs and requirements of the project, leading to inefficiencies and possibly failing to provide the expected benefits. It is crucial to evaluate and select the appropriate tool based on the project's context and objectives. The ISTQBCTFL syllabus highlights the importance of careful tool evaluation and selection to ensure it aligns with the testing goals and the development environment.

References:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 6.2, "Potential Benefits and Risks of Test Automation."

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.

Involving testers only during the testing phase is incorrect as per the ISTQB CTFL syllabus. Effective involvement of testers is crucial throughout the entire software development lifecycle (SDLC). This includes early stages such as requirement analysis and design, which allows testers to understand the design decisions and detect defects early. Early involvement helps in better understanding the project and ensures that quality is built into the product from the beginning. Furthermore, the ISTQB syllabus emphasizes the importance of testers contributing to all activities in the SDLC, including design discussions, to enhance defect detection and prevention.

References:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 2.1.1, "The Influence of Development Models on Testing" and Section 1.1.1, "Test Objectives."

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."

Decision table testing is used to analyze combinations of inputs to determine the appropriate outputs, often based on specific rules or conditions.

For the problem statement:

Rule 1: (Withdrawal = Allowed, Balance = Sufficient, Fast Cash = True, Correct PIN = True)

Outcome: Transaction = Approved

Rule 4: (Withdrawal = Allowed, Balance = Sufficient, Fast Cash = True, Correct PIN = False)

Outcome: Transaction = Declined

The additional test cases are:

DT1: (Withdrawal = Allowed, Balance = Insufficient, Fast Cash = True, Correct PIN = True)

Outcome: Transaction = Declined

DT2: (Withdrawal = Allowed, Balance = Sufficient, Fast Cash = False, Correct PIN = True)

Outcome: Transaction = Approved

DT3: (Withdrawal = Allowed, Balance = Insufficient, Fast Cash = True, Correct PIN = False)

Outcome: Transaction = Declined

DT4: (Withdrawal = Allowed, Balance = Sufficient, Fast Cash = False, Correct PIN = False)

Outcome: Transaction = Declined

From the given test cases,DT2covers the scenario where Fast Cash is False, which is not covered in the initial cases.DT3covers the case where Balance is Insufficient and PIN is incorrect.

Combining Rules 1 and 4 withDT2andDT3covers all the scenarios.

References:

Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0

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

An inspection is a type of review that follows a defined process with formal entry and exit criteria and roles and responsibilities for participants. An inspection can be performed by peers with different roles, such as moderator, author, reviewer and scribe. The following statement about inspection is not true:

B) The main purpose of an inspection is to find solutions to the problems. This statement is not true, as the main purpose of an inspection is to find defects or issues in a work product, not to find solutions to the problems. Finding solutions to the problems is a debugging or problem-solving activity that is usually performed by the author or developer after receiving the inspection report. The following statements about inspection are true:

A) An inspection may be led by a trained moderator who shall not be the author. This statement is true, as an inspection requires a moderator role who leads the inspection process and ensures that it follows the rules and standards. The moderator should be trained in inspection techniques and should not be the author of the work product under inspection, in order to avoid bias or conflict of interest.

C) An inspection can be performed by peers. This statement is true, as an inspection involves peer review, which means that the work product under inspection is evaluated by people who have similar roles or expertise as the author, but who are not directly involved in creating or modifying the work product.

D) An inspection shall follow a formal process based on rules and checklists with entry and exit criteria. This statement is true, as an inspection follows a formal process that consists of six main steps: planning, kick-off meeting, individual preparation, review meeting, rework and follow-up. Each step has defined rules and checklists to guide the participants and ensure consistency and quality. Each step also has entry and exit criteria to ensure that the prerequisites and objectives are met before moving to the next step. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 3, page 28-29.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

The other options are incorrect because:

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

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

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

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

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Non-functional testing evaluates attributes like performance, security, and usability, which are typically assessed at thesystem test level or higher(A). It is not restricted to acceptance testing (B), goes beyond security and performance testing (C), and covers more than just user experience (D).

The test levels and their objectives can be matched as follows:

Verifying whether the functional and non-functional behaviors of the system are as designed and specified (A3: System testing).

Verifying whether the functional and non-functional behaviors of the interfaces are as designed (B2: Integration testing).

Verifying whether the functional and non-functional behaviors of the components are as designed and specified (C1: Component testing).

Establishing confidence in the quality of the system as a whole (D4: Acceptance testing)​​.

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.

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​​.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Exploratory testingis an unscripted approach where testersactively design and execute testsbased on theirintuition, experience, and knowledgeof the system. Atest charter (A)provides a guideline on what areas to explore, defining test objectives but leaving room for dynamic adaptation.

(B), (C), and (D) contradict exploratory testing principles, which focus on freedom rather than rigid documentation.

Exploratory testing is especially useful inagile environments, usability testing, and uncovering unexpected defects.

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 defectreport 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.

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

When writing a defect report, the tester can specify the expected result and the actual result based on the observation. The expected result is what the requirements specify, and the actual result is what was observed during testing. These elements are crucial for clearly communicating the nature of the defect to developers and other stakeholders. The other items such as test environment, test level, and root cause may not be clear or necessary at this stage of defect reporting.

References:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section on defect management and reporting.

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

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 atest 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 oftransitions 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 outputranges 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.

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

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

Other options follow valid sequences according tostate transition rules.

An incident report during testing should focus on factual observations of failures or defects in the system, including their impacts and how they deviate from expected results. Options A, C, and D describe specific issues that are directly related to the system's behavior or performanceand are suitable for inclusion in an incident report. Option B, which describes the user interface as "complicated and confusing" and relates to the tester's personal difficulty in following the test script, is more subjective and relates to the tester's experience rather than an objective observation of a system failure. Therefore, option B is the least appropriate for an incident report​​.

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

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

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

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

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

Structural testing is a type of testing that measures its effectiveness by tracking which lines of code were executed by the tests. Structural testing, also known as white-box testing or glass-box testing, is based on the internal structure, design, or implementation of the software. Structural testing aims to verify that the software meets the specified quality attributes, such as performance, security, reliability, or maintainability, by exercising the code paths, branches, statements, conditions, or data flows. Structural testing uses various coverage metrics, such as function coverage, line coverage, branch coverage, or statement coverage, to determine how much of the code has been tested and to identify any untested or unreachable parts of the code. Structural testing can be applied at any level of testing, such as unit testing, integration testing, system testing, or acceptance testing, but it is more commonly used at lower levels, where the testers have access to the source code.

The other options are not correct because they are not types of testing that measure their effectiveness by tracking which lines of code were executed by the tests. Acceptance testing is a type of testing that verifies that the software meets the acceptance criteria and the user requirements. Acceptance testing is usually performed by the end-users or customers, who may not have access to the source code or the technical details of the software. Acceptance testing is more concerned with the functionality, usability, or suitability of the software, rather than its internal structure or implementation. Integration testing is a type of testing that verifies that the software components or subsystems work together as expected. Integration testing is usually performed bythe developers or testers, who may use both structural and functional testing techniques to check the interfaces, interactions, or dependencies between the components or subsystems. Integration testing is more concerned with the integration logic, data flow, or communication of the software, rather than its individual lines of code. Exploratory testing is a type of testing that involves simultaneous learning, test design, and test execution. Exploratory testing is usually performed by the testers, who use their creativity, intuition, or experience to explore the software and discover any defects, risks, or opportunities for improvement. Exploratory testing is more concerned with the behavior, quality, or value of the software, rather than its internal structure or implementation. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, Chapter 4: Test Techniques, Section 4.3: Structural Testing Techniques, Pages 51-54; Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Testing, Section 1.4: Testing Throughout the Software Development Lifecycle, Pages 11-13; Chapter 3: Static Testing, Section 3.4: Exploratory Testing, Pages 40-41.

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

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.

Non-functional testing refers to testing aspects that do not relate to specific behaviors or functions of the software but to attributes such as performance, usability, reliability, etc. Tests that capture the time it takes to save a file directly relate to the performance of the system, thus falling under non-functional testing.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 1.2.5 "Functional and Non-functional Testing".

Maintenance testing is testing performed on a software product after delivery to correct defects or improve performance or other attributes. Maintenance testing can be triggered by various situations, such as modifications to a released software or system, migration of the system data to a replacement system, or retirement of the software or system. Maintenance testing is not executed when there is an update to the maintainability requirements during the development phase, as this is not a maintenance situation but rather a change request that should be handled by the development process. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 2, page 18-19.

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

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

Title & summary (B)– For quick identification.

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

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

Technical reviews are structured meetings that aim to examine various aspects of a product or project to identify any defects or improvements. Options A (Pre-meeting preparation by reviewers), B (Using checklists during the meeting), and D (Preparation of a review report) are typical activities in a technical review process. Inviting end-users to the meeting (C), however, is generally not part of a typical technical review, as these reviews are usually more focused on the technical aspects and are conducted by peers or experts within the development or testing teams rather than end-users​​.

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​​.

Exploratory testing is an experience-based test technique in which testers dynamically design and execute tests based on their knowledge, intuition, and learning of the software system, without following predefined test scripts or test cases. Exploratory testing can be conducted following a session-based approach, which is a structured way of managing and measuring exploratory testing. In a session-based approach, the testers perform uninterrupted test sessions, usually lasting between 60 and 120 minutes, with a specific charter or goal, and document the issues detected, the test coverage achieved, and the time spent in session sheets. Session sheets are records of the test activities, results, and observations during a test session, which can be used for reporting, debriefing, and learning purposes. The other statements are false, because:

Exploratory testing is not a test technique in which testers explore the requirements specification to detect non testable requirements, but rather a test technique in which testers explore the software system to detect functional and non-functional defects, as well as to learn new information, risks, or opportunities. Non testable requirements are requirements that are ambiguous, incomplete, inconsistent, or not verifiable, which can affect the quality and effectiveness of the testing process. Non testable requirements can be detected by applying static testing techniques, such as reviews or inspections, to the requirements specification, before the software system is developed or tested.

Exploratory testing is not a test technique used by testers during informal code reviews to find defects by exploring the source code, but rather a test technique used by testers during dynamic testing to find defects by exploring the behavior and performance of the software system, without examining the source code. Informal code reviews are static testing techniques, in which the source code is analyzed by one or more reviewers, without following a formal process or using a checklist, to identify defects, violations, or improvements. Informal code reviews are usually performed by developers or peers, not by testers.

In exploratory testing, testers usually do not produce scripted tests and establish bidirectional traceability between these tests and the items of the test basis, but rather produce unscripted tests and adapt them based on the feedback and the findings of the testing process. Scripted tests are tests that are designed anddocumented in advance, with predefined inputs, outputs, and expected results, and are executed according to a test plan or a test procedure. Bidirectional traceability is the ability to trace both forward and backward 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. Scripted tests and bidirectional traceability are usually associated with more formal and structured testing approaches, such as specification-based or structure-based test techniques, not with exploratory testing. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.3, Experience-based Test Design Techniques1

ISTQB® Glossary of TestingTerms v4.0, Exploratory Testing, Session-based Testing, Session Sheet, Non Testable Requirement, Static Testing, Informal Review, Dynamic Testing, Scripted Testing, Bidirectional Traceability2

This answer is correct because the whole-team approach is a way of working in agile projects where all team members share the responsibility for the quality of the product, and collaborate on delivering value to the customer. The whole-team approach involves testers, developers, business analysts, product owners, and other stakeholders in planning, designing, developing, testing, and delivering the product. The whole-team approach fosters communication, feedback, learning, and continuous improvement within the team. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.1

A test tool used for the analysis of a developer's code prior to its execution falls under the category of static testing tools. Static testing involves examining the code and documentation without executing the code. These tools are used to perform static analysis, which helps in identifying potential defects and code quality issues early in the development process. The ISTQB CTFL syllabus specifies that static analysis tools are essential for finding defects that do not manifest themselves during the execution of the program.

References:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 3.1, "Static Testing."

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

≤7 (too cold → W)

8-21 (standstill → X)

22-29 (ideal → Y)

≥30 (too hot → Z)

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

7 → Too cold (W)

10 → Standstill (X)

25 → Ideal (Y)

29 → Upper boundary of ideal (Y)

Other options do not cover all partitions adequately.

Use cases describe a system's behavior as it responds to a request from a user. They typically consist of various scenarios, such as basic flow, alternative flow, and exceptional flow, which represent possible behaviors when a user interacts with the system. When deriving test cases from use cases, it is important to cover these different types of user behaviors.Test cases should be designed to verify how the system behaves during each of these scenarios. This ensures that the system operates correctly for normal and error conditions encountered by human users or systems interacting with the application. Thus, test cases derived from use cases aim to cover basic, exceptional, and alternative flows, ensuring comprehensive coverage.References:

ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 4.2.4.

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 regressiontesting to be performed. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus -Springer, page 20.

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

Exploratory testing is an approach to testing that emphasizes learning, test design and test execution at the same time. Exploratory testing relies on the tester’s skills, creativity and intuition to explore the software under test and discover defects. Exploratory testing is suitable for a new project with little documentation and high probability for bugs, as it can help uncover unknown requirements, assumptions and risks. Exploratory testing is not requirements based testing, which is an approach to testing that derives test cases from documented requirements or specifications. Requirements based testing is not feasible for a new project with little documentation, as it requires clear and complete requirements to be available. Exploratory testing is not metric based approach, which is an approach to testing that uses quantitative measures to monitor and control the testing process and evaluate the quality of the software product. Metric based approach is not effective for a new project with high probability for bugs, as it may not capture all aspects of quality and may lead to false confidence or unrealistic expectations. Exploratory testing is not regression testing, which is an approach to testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after changes. Regression testing is not relevant for a new project with no previous versions or baselines. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 5, page 47-48.

The choice of a software development lifecycle (SDLC) model is primarily influenced by the type of product being developed. Different products and project requirements may demand different SDLC models to address specific challenges and needs efficiently. For instance, a complex, safety-critical product might best be served by a Waterfall model due to its structured nature and phase dependencies, while a more iterative and incremental model might be suited for projects requiring frequent feedback and changes.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.1 "Software Development Lifecycles".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Static testing(A)applies tonon-executable work products(I), such as requirements or code reviews. It alsoleads to defect detection (III)andfinds defects directly (IV)without executing the software. OptionsB, C, and Dincorrectly associate static testing with performance measurement (II) or dynamic testing aspects (V).

The most important task of a typical test leader is to coordinate the test strategy with project managers. The test strategy is a high-level document that defines the general approach and objectives of testing for a project or an organization. The test leader is responsible for defining, documenting, communicating, and implementing the test strategy in alignment with the project goals and constraints. The test leader also needs to coordinate with project managers and other stakeholders to ensure that the test strategy is feasible, effective, and efficient. The other options are not the most important tasks of a typical test leader. To automate tests is a task of a test automation engineer or a test automation specialist. To prepare and acquire test data is a task of a test analyst or a test engineer. To set up the test environment is a task of a test environment manager or a test environment specialist. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 13.

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

The 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 thetesting 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.

A new navigation system compared with a previous system is the most suitable application for testing by use cases, because it involves a high level of interaction between the user and the system, and the expected behavior and outcomes of the system are based on the user’s needs and goals. Use cases can help to specify the functional requirements of the new navigation system, such as the ability to enter a destination, select a route, follow the directions, receive alerts, etc. Use cases can also help to compare the accuracy and usability of the new system with the previous system, by defining the success and failure scenarios, the preconditions and postconditions, and the alternative flows of each use case. Use cases can also help to design and execute test cases that cover the main and exceptional paths of each use case, and to verify the satisfaction of the user’s expectations.

The other options are not the most suitable applications for testing by use cases, because they do not involve a high level of interaction between the user and the system, or the expected behavior and outcomes of the system are not based on the user’s needs and goals. A billing system used to calculate monthly charge based on a large number of subscriber parameters is more suitable for testing by data-driven testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and performance of a system or component by using a large set of input and output data. The ability of an antivirus package to detect and quarantine a new threat is more suitable for testing by exploratory testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and security of a system or component by using an informal and flexible approach, based on the tester’s experience and intuition. The suitability and performance of a multimedia (audio video based) system to a new operating system is more suitable for testing by compatibility testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and performance of a system or component by using different hardware, software, or network environments. References = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 3.1.1, page 28-29; Section 4.1.1, page 44-45; Section 4.2.1, page 47-48.

This question relates to identifying product risks, which are potential problems associated with the product itself, such as software functionality, reliability, usability, and performance. Option A describes a scenario where the application might not meet performance requirements under specific conditions (up to 300 concurrent users), which directly impacts the product's ability to perform its intended function. This is a classic example of a product risk, as it concerns the product's quality and its ability to meet user needs. Options B, C, and D, on the other hand, relate to project risks, which are concerns related to the management and execution of the project, such as tool acquisition, environment configuration, and team expertise, rather than the quality of the product itself.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

When working on a project with incomplete requirements and under pressure to deploy, exploratory testing is particularly suitable. This type of testing allows testers to use their expertise and intuition to explore the system's functionality and identify defects without needing detailed specifications. Exploratory testing is flexible and can quickly adapt to changes and gaps in the requirements​​.

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 theso 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.

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

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

1RhT: a 4-character password that is valid

rSp53: a 5-character password that is valid

3N3e10: a 6-character password that is valid

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

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

aB11: a 4-character password that is valid

Pq1ZZab: a 7-character password that is valid

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

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

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

In Agile development, an informal review, often referred to as a "buddy check," is a common review type. Informal reviews are unstructured and involve a pair of colleagues reviewing each other’s work to identify defects early and provide immediate feedback. This type of review is less formal than inspections or walkthroughs and is particularly suitable for Agile environments where rapid feedback and flexibility are essential.

References:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 3.2.4, "Types of Reviews" and Section 2.1.4, "Agile Testing Practices."

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Atest planis amanagement documentthat outlines thescope, objectives, schedule, resources, and risksof the testing process. Thebudget and schedule (A)are essential components as they help plan resources and timeline constraints.

(B) is incorrectbecause defect analysis is part of thetest summary report, not the test plan.

(C) is incorrectbecausefinal reports summarize execution, while the test plan is createdbefore testing starts.

(D) is incorrectbecause test logs areexecution artifactsrather than planning elements.

A test planguides testing activities and ensures alignment with project objectives.

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 recordedaccurately, 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".

 A correct list of boundary values for the age input should include the minimum and maximum values of each age group (0, 12, 13, 18), as well as the values just below and above each boundary (-1, 19). Boundary value analysis is a test design technique that involves testing the values at or near the boundaries of an input domain or output range, as these values are more likely to cause errors than values in the middle. Option A satisfies this condition, as it has all six boundary values (-1, 0, 12, 13, 18, 19). Option B has two values from the same equivalence class (12 and 13), option C has only four boundary values (0, 12, 18, 19), and option D has no boundary values at all. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 34.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Test management focuses on planning and control activities. Test planning (II) involves defining test strategies, schedules, and resources, while test monitoring and control (V) ensures that testing activities are aligned with objectives and tracked effectively. Other activities, such as test design (I) and peer review facilitation (IV), are typically handled by testers or test leads.

The most important report improvement for the given incident report would be to add information about which web browser was used when the defect was detected. This information is relevant for reproducing and debugging the defect, as different web browsers may have different behaviors or compatibility issues with the web application. The other options are less important or irrelevant for the incident report. The developer who should fix the bug can be assigned by the project manager or the defect tracking system, not by the tester who reports the defect. The time stamp when the incident happened is not very useful, as it does not indicate the cause or the frequency of the defect. The impact analysis is not part of the incident report, but rather of the risk assessment or prioritization process. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 140.

The state transition diagram provided shows three distinct states:

Waiting for fingerprint

Waiting for PIN

Valid PIN/ask menu selection

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

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

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

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

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

Static analysis is a technique that analyzes the source code or other software artifacts without executing them. Static analysis can detect defects such as syntax errors, coding standards violations, potential security vulnerabilities, or logical flaws. Static analysis can catch the bug in the first implementation, as it contains two syntax errors: the variable y is declared twice, and the assignment statement X = y=z is invalid. Static analysis cannot catch the bugs in the other three implementations, as they are logical errors that do not violate any syntax rules, but produce incorrect results. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 3, page 25-26.

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.

When a manager asks when testing will be complete, the most appropriate and informative resource to provide an answer is test progress reports (Option A). Test progress reports contain detailed information on the status of testing activities, including what has been accomplished, what remains to be done, the results of the tests conducted, and any issues or risks that might impact the completion of testing. These reports allow for an informed assessment of the testing progress and estimation of when testing might be completed. Options B, C, and D do not provide the structured, detailed, and specific information required to accurately answer the manager's question about the completion of testing.

A product risk is a risk that affects the quality or timeliness of the software product being developed or tested1. Product risks are related to the requirements, design, implementation, verification, and maintenance of the software product2.

The risk of the sub-contractor failing to meet his commitment is a product risk, as it could cause a delay in the completion of the testing required for the current cycle, which in turn could affect the release date of the product. The release date is an important aspect of the product quality, as it reflects the customer satisfaction and the market competitiveness of the product3.

The other options are not correct because:

A. It is not true that any risk associated with development timeline is a product risk. Some risks could be project risks, which are risks that affect the management or control of the software project, such as budget, resources, schedule, or communication1. For example, a risk of losing a key project stakeholder is a project risk, not a product risk.

B. It is not true that the risk is no longer a risk for the Test Manager since an independent party is managing it. The Test Manager is still responsible for ensuring that the testing activities are completed according to the test plan and the quality objectives4. The Test Manager should monitor and control the sub-contractor’s performance and communicate with him regularly to identify and mitigate any potential issues or deviations5.

C. It is not clear what is meant by “object” in this option, but it could be interpreted as the software system under test or the test object6. In any case, the risk is not an object risk, as it does not affect the successful completion of the object, but rather the successful completion of the testing of the object. An object risk could be a risk that affects the functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, or portability of the software system under test2. For example, a risk of the software system having a high complexity or a low testability is an object risk, not a product risk.

References =

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

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

3 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 99

4 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 100

5 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 101

6 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 102

Acceptance testing is a level of testing performed to verify that a software product meets the agreed acceptance criteria and is acceptable for delivery. Acceptance testing is often performed by the customers or system users, who are the main stakeholders of the software product. The main goal of acceptance testing is to build confidence in the system, not find defects, as defects should have been detected and fixed in earlier levels of testing. Acceptance testing is the last level of testing performed prior to system release, unless there are any changes or fixes that require re-testing. Testing of disaster recovery and backup/restore is usually part of acceptance testing, as these are important aspects of system reliability and security that affect the customer satisfaction and trust. Therefore, statement A is not correct, while statements B, C and D are correct. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 2, page 20-21.

Static analysis tools are software tools that examine the source code of a program without executing it. They can detect various types of issues, such as syntax errors, coding standards violations, security vulnerabilities, and potential bugs12. However, static analysis tools cannot identify issues that depend on the runtime behavior or performance of the program, such as very low MTBF (Mean Time Between failure)3. MTBF is a measure of the reliability of a system or component. It is calculated by dividing the total operating time by the number of failures. MTBF reflects how often a system or component fails during its expected lifetime. Static analysis tools cannot measure MTBF because they do not run the program or observe its failures. MTBF can only be estimated by dynamic testing, which involves executing the program under various conditions and collecting data on its failures4. Therefore, very low MTBF is an issue that cannot be identified by static analysis tools. The other options, such as potentially endless loops, referencing a variable with an undefined value, and security vulnerabilities, are issues that can be identified by static analysis tools. Static analysis tools can detect potentially endless loops by analyzing the control flow and data flow of the program and checking for conditions that may never become false5. Static analysis toolscan detect referencing a variable with an undefined value by checking the scope and initialization of variables and reporting any use of uninitialized variables6. Static analysis tools can detect security vulnerabilities by checking for common patterns of insecure code, such as buffer overflows, SQL injections, cross-site scripting, and weak encryption. References = What Is Static Analysis? Static Code Analysis Tools - Perforce Software, How Static Code Analysis Works | Perforce, Static Code Analysis: Techniques, Top 5 Benefits & 3 Challenges, What is MTBF? Mean Time Between Failures Explained | Perforce, Static analysis tools - Software Testing MCQs - CareerRide, ISTQB_Chapter3| Quizizz, [Static Code Analysis for Security Vulnerabilities | Perforce].

A technical review is a type of formal review that involves a team of technical experts who evaluate a software product against a set of predefined quality criteria. A technical review is suitable for ensuring high quality and technical correctness of complex or critical software components, such as algorithms, architectures or designs. A technical review is not a walkthrough, which is an informal review led by the author of the work product. A technical review is not an informal review, which is a review that does not follow a defined process and has no formal entry or exit criteria. A technical review is not a management review, which is a type of formal review that focuses on business aspects and project progress. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 3, page 29-30.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Retrospectives provide value by fostering improvement and collaboration. The correct mapping is:

A2: Team bonding occurs when teams openly discuss issues.

B1: Test effectiveness increases when process improvements are implemented.

C4: Test basis improves by addressing requirement deficiencies.

D3: Cooperation improves through regular review of collaboration.

Static testing, such as code reviews and static analysis, is particularly effective at identifying issues related to code structure and modularization. These techniques allow for the inspection of the code without executing it, making it easier to spot problems related to how the code is organized. Dynamic testing, on the other hand, focuses on the execution of code and is better suited for identifying runtime issues but does not easily reveal structural problems. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 highlights the strengths of static testing in uncovering such structural issue

Experience-based test techniques are test design techniques that rely on the experience, knowledge, intuition, and creativity of the testers to identify and execute test cases that are likely to find defects in the software system. Experience-based test techniques are often useful to detect hidden defects that have not been targeted by black-box test techniques, which are test design techniques that use the external behavior and specifications of the software system as the test basis, without considering its internal structure or implementation. Experience-based test techniques can complement black-box test techniques by covering aspects that are not explicitly specified, such as usability, security, reliability, performance, etc. The other statements are false, because:

Experience-based test techniques do not rely on the experience of testers to identify the root causes of defects found by black-box test techniques, but rather to identify the potential sources of defects based on their own insights, heuristics, or exploratory testing. The root causes of defects are usually identified by debugging or root cause analysis, which are activities that involve examining the code or the development process to find and fix the errors that led to the defects.

Some of the most common test basis used by white-box test techniques include the source code, the design documents, the architecture diagrams, and the control flow graphs of the software system. White-box test techniques are test design techniques that use the internal structure and implementation of the software system as the test basis, and aim to achieve a certain level of test coverage based on the code elements, such as statements, branches, paths, etc. User stories, use cases, and business processes are examples of test basis used by black-box test techniques, as they describe the functional and non-functional requirements of the software system from the perspective of the users or the stakeholders.

The primary goal of experience-based test techniques is not to design test cases that can be easily automated using a GUI-based test automation tool, but rather to design test cases that can reveal defects that are not easily detected by other test techniques, such as boundary value analysis, equivalence partitioning, state transition testing, etc. Test automation is the use of software tools to execute test cases and compare actual results with expected results, without humanintervention. Test automation can be applied to different types of test techniques, depending on the test objectives, the test levels, the test tools, and the test resources. However, test automation is not always feasible or beneficial, especially for test cases that require human judgment, creativity, or exploration, such as those designed by experience-based test techniques. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

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

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.2, White-box Test Design Techniques

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.3, Experience-based Test Design Techniques

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Experience-based Test Technique, Black-box Test Technique, White-box Test Technique, Test Basis, Test Coverage, Test Automation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A 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.

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.

Confirmation testing is performed after a defect is fixed, and if such testing is successful then the regression tests that are relevant for such fix can be executed. Confirmation testing, also known as re-testing, is the process of verifying that a defect has been resolved by running the test case that originally detected the defect. Confirmation testing is usually done before regression testing, which is the process of verifying that no new defects have been introduced in the software as a result of changes or fixes. Therefore, option D is the correct answer.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 2.4.1, page 28; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 15.

 A test oracle is a mechanism or principle that can be used to determine whether the observed behavior or output of a system under test is correct or not1. A test oracle can be based on various sources of expected results, such as specifications, user expectations, previous versions, comparable systems, etc2. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Section 1.2.1, Page 91; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, Page 332.

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.

Statements II, III and V are true about test reports. Test reports are documents that provide information on the results and status of testing activities for a given period or phase. Test reports should give stakeholders information as basis for decisions, such as whether to release the software product, whether to continue testing, whether to change the scope or priorities of testing, etc. Test reports should summarize what happened through a period of testing, such as what test cases were executed, what defects were found, what risks were identified, what issues were encountered, what achievements were made, etc. Test reports should include information about remaining risks, such as what defects are still open, what test cases are still pending, what functionalities are still untested, what uncertainties are still unresolved, etc. Statements I and IV are not true about test reports. Test reports do not need to be approved by the test team, the development team, or the customer, unless it is specified by the test policy or the test plan. Test reports only need to be reviewed and verified by the test leader or the test manager before being distributed to the intended recipients. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 141.

In the context of agile (iterative-incremental) development models, testing is integrated into the development process and occurs continuously throughout the lifecycle of the project. Agile testing emphasizes adaptability and the need for feedback at various stages of development.

Option C is correct because regression testing is indeed necessary whenever a new increment is added to the existing system. Agile development often involves frequent changes and additions to the codebase, which can potentially introduce new defects into previously tested code. Regression testing ensures that new changes have not adversely affected existing functionality.

Options A, B, and D present misconceptions about agile testing:

A is incorrect because, in agile, all types of testing (unit, integration, system, acceptance) are important and occur throughout the iteration, not just unit and acceptance tests.

B is incorrect because agile methodologies advocate for continuous integration and testing, where development and testing activities overlap and support each other throughout an iteration.

D is incorrect because agile methodologies encourage a wide range of testing types, including both functional and non-functional, as well as exploratory testing, to ensure a comprehensive quality assessment.