CTFL_Syll_4.0 Questions and Answers

Experience-based testing techniques are adopted for several reasons, most importantly because they can identify defects that might be missed by more systematic approaches like black-box and white-box testing. While systematic techniques follow predefined procedures and cover specific criteria, experience-based techniques leverage the tester's knowledge, intuition, and experience, which can be especially effective in uncovering subtle and complex issues.

Experience-based testing techniques include methods such as error guessing and exploratory testing. These methods rely on the tester’s background and intuition to predict where defects might be located and how the system might fail. These techniques are particularly useful in situations where the requirements and specifications are incomplete or ambiguous, and where creative and ad-hoc approaches can provide significant value.

References:

The official ISTQB® CTFL syllabus emphasizes that experience-based techniques can find defects that more systematic techniques might miss, which makes them valuable complements to other testing methods​​.

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 isanalyzed 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 and documented 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 Testing Terms v4.0, Exploratory Testing, Session-based Testing, Session Sheet, Non Testable Requirement, Static Testing, Informal Review, Dynamic Testing, Scripted Testing, Bidirectional Traceability2

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

(A) describes statement testing, not branch testing.

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

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

In Agile estimation sessions, particularly during Planning Poker, the goal is to reach a consensus on the effort required for a user story. The process encourages discussion and collaboration among team members to understand the story's requirements and complexities fully. Here’s a breakdown of the options and why D is the correct choice:

Option A:Calculating the arithmetic mean of all estimates.

This method is straightforward but does not facilitate team discussion or consensus-building. It merely averages out the estimates without addressing the reasons behind the varying estimates. Thus, important insights and understanding of the task complexity might be missed.

Option B:Selecting the most frequent estimate value.

While this approach acknowledges the majority’s opinion, it ignores the minority views, which might highlight significant aspects of the story that need consideration. It doesn't ensure that all perspectives are considered and discussed.

Option C:Calculating the mean of the most optimistic and pessimistic estimates.

This approach considers the extremes but again lacks the team discussion and consensus aspect. It also assumes that the extreme values alone can balance out the estimate, which might not always capture the true complexity or simplicity of the task.

Option D:Discussing the most pessimistic and optimistic estimates.

This approach fosters team collaboration and understanding. Memb4 and Memb6 explain their reasoning for the highest and lowest estimates, respectively, which can reveal different perspectives on the task's complexity. This discussion helps the team align their understanding and often leads to a more accurate and agreed-upon estimate in subsequent rounds.

In conclusion, the main goal of Agile estimation techniques like Planning Poker is to encourage team communication and collaboration to ensure that all aspects of the user story are considered. Option D best aligns with this goal by promoting discussion and consensus.

Test-driven development is not an example of a typical generic skill required for testing, but rather an example of a specific technical skill or a development practice that may or may not be relevant for testing, depending on the context and the objectives of the testing activities. Test-driven development is an approach to software development and testing, in which the developers write automated unit tests before writing the source code, and then refactor the code until the tests pass. Test-driven development can help to improve the quality, the design, and the maintainability of the code, as well as to provide fast feedback and guidance for the developers. However, test-driven development is not a skill that is generally expected or needed for testers, especially for testers who are not involved in unit testing or who do not have access to the source code. The other options are examples of typical generic skills required for testing, which are skills that are applicable and beneficial for testing in any context or situation, regardless of the specific testing techniques, tools, or methods used. The typical generic skills required for testing include:

Be able to use test management tools and defect tracking tools: These are tools that help testers to plan, organize, monitor, and control the testing activities and resources, as well as to record, track, analyze, and resolve the defects detected during testing. These tools can improve the efficiency, the effectiveness, and the communication of the testing process, as well as to provide traceability, metrics, and reports for the testing outcomes.

Be able to communicate defects and failures to developers as objectively as possible: This is a skill that involves the ability to report and describe the defects and failures found during testing in a clear, concise, accurate, and unbiased manner, using relevant information, evidence, and terminology, without making assumptions, judgments, or accusations. This skill can facilitate the collaboration, the understanding, and the resolution of the defects and failuresbetween the testers and the developers, as well as to prevent conflicts, misunderstandings, or blame games.

Possess the necessary social skills that support effective teamwork: These are skills that involve the ability to interact, cooperate, and coordinate with other people involved in or affected by the testing activities, such as the test manager, the test team, the project manager, the developers, the customers, the users, etc. These skills can include communication, negotiation, leadership, motivation, feedback, conflict resolution, etc. These skills can enhance the quality, the productivity, and the satisfaction of the testing process, as well as to foster a positive and constructive testing culture. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

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

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

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

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

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test-driven Development, Test Management Tool, Defect Tracking Tool, Defect Report, Failure, Social Skill2

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

References:

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

During the review planning phase of a formal review process, decisions are made regarding which standards and procedures will be followed. This planning ensures that the review process is structured, consistent, and aligned with organizational or project-specific guidelines, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and reliability of the review outcomes.

In a typical formal review process, the role usually responsible for documenting the findings, such as action items, decisions, and recommendations, made by the review team is the recorder. The recorder ensures that all discussions and conclusions are accurately captured and documented for future reference and follow-up.

BDD emphasizes collaboration between developers, testers, and business stakeholders to define system behavior in a readable format (A). It typically uses theGiven-When-Thensyntax. Unlike unit testing (B), BDD is at a higher level of abstraction. It does not focus solely on non-functional testing (C) and encourages early testing rather than post-development validation (D).

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

Boundary value analysis involves testing at the boundaries between partitions. The most efficient boundary values to test are those at the edge of the input ranges:

Just below the minimum value (9)

At the minimum value (10)

Just above the minimum value (11)

Just below the maximum value (4999)

At the maximum value (5000)

Just above the maximum value (5001)

Testing these values ensures that the program handles the boundaries correctly, covering both valid and invalid input scenarios​​.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

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

References:

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

Boundary Value Analysis (BVA)focuses on test cases at the edges of partitions because defects often occur at boundaries. The temperature ranges are:

≤7 (Too cold → W)

[8-21] (Standstill → X)

[22-29] (Ideal → Y)

≥30 (Too hot → Z)

Atwo-point BVAmeans testing both thelower and upper boundary valuesof each partition.The correct selection{7,8,21,22,29,30}includes:

7 → Boundary of Too Cold (W)

8 → Lower boundary of Standstill (X)

21 → Upper boundary of Standstill (X)

22 → Lower boundary of Ideal (Y)

29 → Upper boundary of Ideal (Y)

30 → Lower boundary of Too Hot (Z)

This ensures maximum boundary coverage.

The statement "Achieving full code coverage for a component or a system ensures that it has been fully tested" is false because achieving full code coverage does not necessarily mean that all possible defects have been identified or that the system is free of bugs. Code coverage metrics, such as statement coverage, branch coverage, or path coverage, only measure the extent to which the source code has been executed during testing, but they do not guarantee that all logical paths or use cases have been exercised or that the code behaves correctly under all conditions.

Full code coverage indicates that every line of code has been executed at least once, but it does not account for the quality of the test cases or their ability to detect defects. There can still be issues related to performance, usability, security, and other non-functional aspects that are not addressed by code coverage alone.

References:

The official ISTQB® CTFL syllabus outlines the limitations of code coverage and emphasizes that while it is an important metric, it does not guarantee the absence of defects or that the software is fully tested​​.

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

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

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

Theratio-based estimation methodrelies on historical relationships betweendevelopment and testing effort.

Using the given5:3 ratio:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debugging activities typically include reproducing the failure, diagnosing the root cause, and fixing the cause of the failure. Adding new test cases, while important in the overall testing process, is not a direct part of debugging. Debugging focuses on understanding and correcting the issue that caused the failure, rather than expanding the test suite.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.5 on debugging activities, which lists reproducing the failure, diagnosing the root cause, and fixing the cause as core activities​​.

The best example of a test case for this user story should cover the acceptance criteria comprehensively. Option A addresses the critical aspects of the acceptance criteria:

Verifying the discount for the first timeslot (8 AM GMT) - ensuring it provides a 10% discount.

Verifying that changing the time slot removes the discount - ensuring the discount logic is correctly applied.

This test case effectively validates the functionality related to both the discount and the ability to change time slots, which are key parts of the user story's requirements​​.

A configuration management tool helps in maintaining and managing changes to software, including test cases. It ensures that changes are tracked and can be retrieved if needed. In this scenario, using a configuration management tool would have allowed Sam's updates to be stored in a central repository, preventing the loss of his work even if his PC's hard disk crashed.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.4 on configuration management, which describes the role of configuration management tools in maintaining control over changes​​.

White-box testing involves testing the internal structures or workings of an application, as opposed to the functionality exposed to the end user. Experience-based testing, such as exploratory testing, involves testers using their knowledge, experience, and intuition to test the system without predefined test cases, often focusing on the input-output behavior of the system.

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

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

Using the given values, the expected value is:

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

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

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

Using the given values, the standard deviation is:

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

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

Expected value ± standard deviation

Using the calculated values, the range is:

30 ± 8 person hours

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

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

Maintenance testing is performed to ensure that the application continues to function correctly after changes have been made. These changes can include modifications due to new regulations, bug fixes, enhancements, or any other updates. In this case, the change in the protocol for connecting to the payment gateway due to new regulations falls under maintenance testing, as itinvolves testing the application to ensure it works correctly after the implementation of the required changes​​.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

During release planning, a tester adds value by assessing the testability of user stories. This involves evaluating whether the user stories are clear, concise, and testable. The tester ensures that the acceptance criteria are well-defined and that the stories can be effectively tested within the given timeframe.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.1.2 on the tester's contribution to iteration and release planning, which includes assessing the testability of user stories​​.

The 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.

This answer is correct because configuration management is a process of establishing and maintaining consistency of a product’s performance, functional, and physical attributes with its requirements, design, and operational information throughout its life. Configuration management helps ensure that all relevant project documentation and software items are uniquely identified in all their versions and therefore can be unambiguously referenced in test documentation. This supports testing by providing traceability, consistency, and control over the test artifacts and the software under test. References: : ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, : ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.2.2.2

Scenario-oriented acceptance criteria describe how a system should behave in a specific situation or scenario. These criteria are typically written from the end-user's perspective and focus on user interactions and system responses. Option D fits this description as it outlines a specific scenariowhere a user is already logged in and describes the expected behavior when the user navigates to a particular page, which is to show the report of the last test run. This type of criterion ensures that the system meets user expectations in that scenario​​.

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

The unscripted tests produced by the tester’s experience during the two-hour test session belong to the testing quadrant Q3. The testing quadrants are a classification of testing types based on two dimensions: the test objectives (whether the testing is focused on supporting the team or critiquing the product) and the test basis (whether the testing is based on the technology or the business). The testing quadrants are labeled as Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4, and each quadrant represents a different testing perspective, such as unit testing, acceptance testing, usability testing, or performance testing. The testing quadrant Q3 corresponds to the testing types that have the objective of critiquing the product from the business perspective, such as exploratory testing, usability testing, user acceptance testing, alpha testing, beta testing, etc. The unscripted tests performed by the tester in the given scenario are examples of exploratory testing and usability testing, as they are based on the tester’s experience, intuition, and learning of the web application, and they focus on some specific usability issues, such as the user interface, the user satisfaction, the user feedback, etc. The other options are incorrect, because:

The testing quadrant Q1 corresponds to the testing types that have the objective of supporting the team from the technology perspective, such as unit testing, component testing, integration testing, system testing, etc. These testing types are usually performed by developers or testers who have access to the source code, the design, the architecture, or the configuration of the software system, and they aim to verify the functionality, the quality, and the reliability of the software system at different levels of integration.

The testing quadrant Q2 corresponds to the testing types that have the objective of supporting the team from the business perspective, such as functional testing, acceptance testing, story testing, scenario testing, etc. These testing types are usually performed by testers or customers who have access to the requirements, the specifications, the user stories, or the business processes of the software system, and they aim to validate that the software system meets the expectations and the needs of the users and the stakeholders.

The testing quadrant Q4 corresponds to the testing types that have the objective of critiquing the product from the technology perspective, such as performance testing, security testing, reliability testing, compatibility testing, etc. These testing types are usually performed by testers or specialists who have access to the tools, the metrics, the standards, or the benchmarks of the software system, and they aim to evaluate the non-functional aspects of the software system, such as the efficiency, the security, the reliability, or the compatibility of the software system under different conditions or environments. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

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

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Testing Quadrant, Exploratory Testing, Usability Testing, Unit Testing, Component Testing, Integration Testing, SystemTesting, Functional Testing, Acceptance Testing, Story Testing, Scenario Testing, Performance Testing, Security Testing, Reliability Testing, Compatibility Testing

In branch testing, a conditional branch represents a decision point in the software program where the flow of execution can take different paths based on specific conditions. For example, this could be an "if-else" statement, a "switch-case" statement, or loops where different execution paths are taken depending on the evaluated condition. This type of testing ensures that all possible paths and conditions are executed at least once, which helps in identifying any potential defects in different branches of the code​​.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 of the typical potential risks associated with using test automation tools is the underestimation of the effort required to maintain test scripts. While test automation can reduce test execution times and provide more consistent and repeatable tests compared to manual testing, maintaining test scripts can be labor-intensive and often requires significant effort. Changes in the application under test can lead to frequent updates in the test scripts to keep them functional and relevant.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 6.2 on the benefits and risks of test automation tools

The syllabus outlines that while automation can improve efficiency, it also introduces maintenance challenges​​.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Type of customer

Amount of sale

Bonus percentage

Basic

G1

3%

Basic

G2

5%

Basic

G3

7%

Premium

G1

5%

Premium

G2

7%

Premium

G3

10%

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

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

The test pyramid is a concept that illustrates the different levels of testing and their relative quantities. The pyramid suggests that there should be more low-level unit tests than high-level end-to-end tests. As you move up the pyramid, the scope of each test increases, meaning each higher level test typically covers more of the production code.

Unit Tests:Form the base of the pyramid and cover individual units of code. They are numerous because they are quick to write and execute.

Service/Integration Tests:Sit in the middle of the pyramid and cover interactions between integrated units or services.

UI/End-to-End Tests:At the top of the pyramid, these tests cover entire workflows and user interactions, making them fewer in number due to their complexity and execution time.

Option B accurately describes that the higher the layer of the test pyramid, the more production code a single automated test tends to cover because these higher-level tests involve broader functionalities and interactions compared to unit tests.

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

The other options are incorrect because:

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

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

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

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

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

1RhT: a 4-character password that is valid

rSp53: a 5-character password that is valid

3N3e10: a 6-character password that is valid

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

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

aB11: a 4-character password that is valid

Pq1ZZab: a 7-character password that is valid

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

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

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

This answer is correct because a typical objective of testing is to ensure that a software has been tested using a combination of test techniques, such as black-box, white-box, or experience-based techniques, that are appropriate for the test objectives, test levels, and test types. Testing using a combination of test techniques can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of testing, as different techniques can target different aspects of the software quality, such as functionality, usability, performance, security, reliability, etc. Testing using a combination of test techniques can also reduce the risk of missing defects that could be detected by one technique but not by another. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.1.1, Section 2.3.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A) is correctbecause automationspeeds up execution.

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

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

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

 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 that the 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.

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.

To reproduce a defect easily, the defect report should include detailed steps that clearly describe how to encounter the issue. This includes the specific actions taken, the expected result, and the actual result observed. In the given defect report, it is not clear if the issue occurs for any scheduled exam or if it is user-specific. Providing exact steps helps developers and testers replicate the issue and understand its context better, leading to quicker and more effective resolution​​.

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

References:

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

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

The registration form must be filled with valid values.

The user must accept terms and conditions.

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

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

References:

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

Equivalence partitioning (EP)divides input values into classes where test casesrepresent all possible valuesof each partition. The partitions in this scenario are:

≤7 (too cold → W)

8-21 (standstill → X)

22-29 (ideal → Y)

≥30 (too hot → Z)

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

7 → Too cold (W)

10 → Standstill (X)

25 → Ideal (Y)

29 → Upper boundary of ideal (Y)

Other options do not cover all partitions adequately.

Checklist-based testing, as defined in the ISTQB CTFL syllabus, is indeed a review technique used within formal review processes. During these reviews, reviewers individually inspect work products to identify defects based on predefined checklists. These checklists serve as guidelines to ensure thorough examination and to cover important aspects consistently.

The other options do not accurately describe the checklist-based testing technique. Option A describes a technique for managing review meetings rather than the checklist-based testing itself. Option C incorrectly emphasizes the level of detail in checklists as a factor in reproducibility of test cases, which is not the primary focus of checklist-based testing. Option D, while true about the necessity of periodic review, is not the core aspect of the checklist-based testing technique itself.

Regression testing is the re-running of functional and non-functional tests to ensure that previously developed and tested software still performs as expected after a change1 It does not involve retesting of a fixed defect, testing of new functionality, or applying only to functional testing. Tests that are used for regression testing should be repeatable, because they are used to verify the stability of the software after each change2 References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2, Page 291; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Page 292

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.

Equivalence partitioning involves dividing input data into partitions that are treated the same by the system under test. The given specifications create overlapping partitions:

For n<0n < 0n<0, an error message "Value out of range" is issued.

For 0

For 100

However, the range between 0 and 100 is exclusive of 0 and 100, meaning that the partitions overlap and create ambiguity for the boundary values. Thus, the correct statement is that the requirements are not correct because the partitions are overlapping​​.