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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testing has several objectives that aim to provide information and confidence about the quality and risk level of the software product and to support decision-making and improvement processes. Some of these objectives are:

• Finding defects: Testing is the process of finding defects or failures in the software product that do not meet its requirements or expectations.
• Providing information for decision-making: Testing is the process of providing information about the quality and risk level of the software product based on the observed behavior and results under certain conditions and assumptions. This information can help stakeholders make informed decisions about releasing, deploying, accepting, or improving the software product.
• Gaining confidence about the level of quality of the software: Testing is the process of gaining confidence that the software product meets its requirements and expectations and provides value to the users and customers.
• Analyzing and removing the cause of failures: Testing is not only the process of finding defects but also the process of analyzing and removing the cause of failures that lead to defects. This objective is related to debugging, which is a development activity that involves locating, diagnosing, and fixing errors in the code or design of the software product.

You can find more information about the objectives of testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 1, Section 1.2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A use case is a description of how a user interacts with a system to achieve a goal or perform a task. A use case typically consists of a sequence of steps or actions that the user and the system perform to complete the goal or task. A use case can be used as a basis for designing test cases that verify the functionality and usability of the system under test. A test sequence that represents a possible use case should follow the logical order and flow of the user-system interaction and cover the main scenario and possible variations or exceptions. For example, based on the test cases given for a Library Management System, we can identify the following use cases:

• UC1: Add a new borrower to the system
• UC2: Update a borrower’s data
• UC3: Remove a borrower from the system
• UC4: Loan a book to a borrower
• UC5: Return a book from a borrower
• UC6: Reserve a book for a borrower
• UC7: Send “reservation ready” message to a borrower

The test sequence that represents a possible use case is D. 1-2-6-7-4-5-3. This test sequence follows the logical order and flow of the user-system interaction and covers the main scenario and possible variations or exceptions. For example:

• TC1: Add a new borrower to the system -> This is the first step of the use case, where the user registers as a new borrower in the system.
• TC2: Update a borrower’s data -> This is a possible variation of the use case, where the user updates their personal or contact information in the system.
• TC6: Reserve a book for a borrower -> This is the second step of the use case, where the user reserves a book that they want to borrow from the library.
• TC7: Send “reservation ready” message to a borrower -> This is the third step of the use case, where the system sends a message to the user informing them that their reserved book is ready for pickup.
• TC4: Loan a book to a borrower -> This is the fourth step of the use case, where the user picks up their reserved book from the library and loans it from the system.
• TC5: Return a book from a borrower -> This is the fifth step of the use case, where the user returns their borrowed book to the library and returns it to the system.
• TC3: Remove a borrower from the system -> This is a possible exception of the use case, where

the user decides to cancel their membership and remove their account from the system.

The other test sequences do not represent possible use cases because they do not follow the logical order and flow of the user-system interaction or they do not cover the main scenario and possible variations or exceptions. For example:

• A. 1-4-2-7-5-6-3 -> This test sequence does not follow the logical order and flow of the user-system interaction because it performs some steps before or after they are supposed to happen. For example, it performs TC4 (Loan a book to a borrower) before TC6 (Reserve a book for a borrower), which does not make sense because the user cannot loan a book that they have not reserved yet.
• B. 1-6-2-5-7-4-3 -> This test sequence does not follow the logical order and flow of the user-system interaction because it performs some steps before or after they are supposed to happen. For example, it performs TC5 (Return a book from a borrower) before TC4 (Loan a book to a borrower), which does not make sense because the user cannot return a book that they have not loaned yet.
• C. 1-6-4-7-5-3-2 -> This test sequence does not cover the main scenario and possible variations or exceptions because it omits some steps that are essential for completing or terminating the use case. For example, it omits TC2 (Update a borrower’s data), which is a possible variation of the use case that allows the user to change their personal or contact information in the system.

You can find more information about use cases and test sequences in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

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

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

The requirement given in

the image specifies

the charge for

a money transfer based on

the amount

of money transferred.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

66, Weekend = No -> No charge

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

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

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

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

How to fix the defect is not needed to specify in a defect report because it is not part of the information that is required to describe, reproduce, and prioritize the defect. How to fix the defect is part of the solution or resolution that is provided by the developers or maintainers who are responsible for correcting the defect. A defect report is a document that records and communicates the details of a defect found during testing. A defect report typically includes the following information:

• Defect ID: A unique identifier for the defect
• Summary: A brief description of the defect
• Severity and priority: An indication of how serious and urgent the defect is
• Test environment details: A description of the hardware, software, network, data, tools, etc., that were used when the defect was found
• How to reproduce the defect: A step-by-step procedure to recreate the defect
• Expected and actual results: A comparison of what should have happened and what actually happened when the defect occurred
• Attachments: Any additional information or evidence that can help understand or resolve the defect, such as screenshots, logs, files, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Test implementation and execution is the stage of the Fundamental Test Process where testers write detailed steps for executing each test case (test procedures), prepare and prioritize test cases for execution, execute test cases and record results, compare actual results with expected results and report discrepancies as incidents.

According to the syllabus, boundary value analysis is a technique that tests the values on and near the boundaries of an equivalence partition. The three-point boundary values are the minimum, just below the minimum, and just above the minimum for the lower boundary, and the maximum, just below the maximum, and just above the maximum for the upper boundary. The answer A is correct because it contains the three-point boundary values for both the lower and upper boundaries of the age range. The other answers are incorrect because they either miss some of the boundary values or include values that are too far from the boundaries.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.2.2, page 41.

They should be involved in reviewing requirements or user stories as soon as drafts are available is the option that represents good testing practice for testers, irrespective of the software lifecycle model used, because it allows testers to provide early feedback, identify potential defects, and clarify test objectives and scope1 . Early involvement of testers in reviewing requirements or user stories can improve the quality and testability of the software and reduce the cost and effort of testing1 . The other options do not represent good testing practice for testers, irrespective of the software lifecycle model used. Option A is not a good option, because they should start test analysis as early as possible, not when the corresponding development level is complete, to avoid delays and inefficiencies in testing1 . Option C is not a good option, because they should ensure that different test objectives apply to each test level, not the same test objectives, to avoid redundancy and gaps in testing1 . Option D is not a good option, because they should minimize the ratio of development levels to test levels to reduce project costs, but rather balance the development and test levels according to the project needs and risks1 .

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

 The percentage of planned test cases designed is not a common metric used for monitoring test preparation and execution, because it does not reflect the quality or completeness of the test cases or their alignment with the test objectives1 . The other options are common metrics used for monitoring test preparation and execution. The number of test cases passed and failed indicates the quality and status of the software under test1 . The number of test plan review comments indicates the quality and completeness of the test plan document1 . The percentage of tasks complete in test environment preparation indicates the progress and readiness of the test environment1 .

 A variable has the wrong numeric value passed into it is the type of defect that would not be typically found by using a static analysis tool, because it is a logical or functional error that depends on the context and requirements of the software13. A static analysis tool can detect syntactic or structural errors in the code, such as missing declarations, undefined variables, unused variables, or unreachable code13. The other options represent such errors that can be typically found by using a static analysis tool. Option A is an error where a variable is defined but is then not used, which indicates a waste of memory or a possible logic flaw13. Option B is an error where a variable is used in a calculation before it is defined, which can cause unpredictable results or exceptions13. Option D is an error where a variable is used but not declared, which can cause compilation or runtime errors

Test control is a test management activity that involves making decisions based on information from test monitoring and test progress reporting. Test control activities include:

• Re-prioritizing tests because of time pressure
• Changing the test schedule due to availability of a test environment
• Setting entry and exit criteria for test levels or test activities
• Initiating corrective actions to resolve deviations from the test plan

Writing test suspension and resumption criteria in the test plan is not a test control activity, but rather a test planning activity. Test suspension and resumption criteria are used to define when to stop and resume testing in case of unforeseen events or issues that affect the test execution.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 2.4.2 and 2.4.3

Effort estimate depends on the budget of the project is the wrong statement about estimation of the test effort, because it confuses the cause and effect relationship between effort estimate and budget. Effort estimate does not depend on the budget of the project, but rather influences it. Effort estimate is an approximation of how much time and resources are needed for testing activities based on various factors such as scope, complexity, risks, quality, etc. . Budget is the amount of money that is allocated or available for testing activities based on the effort estimate . The other options are true statements about estimation of the test effort. Option A is true, because effort estimate can be inaccurate because the quality of the product under test is not known, which affects the number and severity of defects that need to be detected and fixed . Option B is true, because once the test effort is estimated, resources can be identified and a schedule can be drawn up, which are part of test planning . Option C is true, because experience based estimation is one of the estimation techniques that relies on the judgement and expertise of testers or other stakeholders who have previous knowledge or experience with similar projects .

Regression testing is intended to find side-effects after changes have been applied to the system under test. Side-effects are unintended consequences of changes that may cause new defects or re-introduce previously fixed defects in parts of the system that were not directly modified. Regression testing can be done at any level of testing and can use any type of testing technique.

2400, 1000, 2301 are test case inputs that each fall into a different equivalence partition1. Equivalence partitioning is a black box test design technique that divides the input domain of a system into partitions of equivalent data2. Each partition should contain data that is expected to be treated the same by the system2. Therefore, only one test case input from each partition is needed to test the system’s behaviour2. In this question, the input domain of the system is the time of travel, which can be divided into three partitions based on the fare rules:

• Peak-time tariff: This partition contains all the times between 0600 and 1000 (inclusive), which are subject to a higher fare.
• Off-peak tariff: This partition contains all the times between 1001 and 2259 (inclusive), which are subject to a lower fare.
• No service: This partition contains all the times between 2300 and 0559 (inclusive), which are not valid for travel.

Therefore, to test the system’s behaviour for each partition, we need to choose one test case input from each partition. Among the options given in this question, only D contains one test case input from each partition. 2400 belongs to the no service partition, 1000 belongs to the peak-time tariff partition, and 2301 belongs to the off-peak tariff partition. Therefore, D is the correct answer.

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

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

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

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

Tests designed by a person in the development team other than the person who wrote the code is not the lowest level of independence. The lowest level of independence is tests designed by the person who wrote the code, as this may introduce bias or blind spots in testing. Tests designed by another person in the development team is one level higher than tests designed by the person who wrote the code, as this may provide a different perspective or expertise in testing. defines the levels of independence as follows:

The level of independence of testing is related to the degree of separation between those who are responsible for developing software and those who are responsible for testing software.

The following levels of independence can be distinguished:

• Level 0: No independent testing; tests are designed by the same person who wrote the code.
• Level 1: Tests are designed by another person in the development team; e.g., another programmer or software designer.
• Level 2: Tests are designed by a person from a different group within the organization; e.g., an independent test team or group.
• Level 3: Tests are designed by a person from a different organization or company; e.g., an outsourcing partner or contractor.

A, B, and C are correct statements. A test team with high level of independence may suffer from lower familiarity with the product (A), as they may not have access to all the information or knowledge about the system under test. Development team may find many defects since they are familiar with the code (B), as they may have more insight into how the system works internally and where potential problems may occur. Tests designed by a person from different group in the organization is the highest level of independence within an organization ©, as this provides maximum separation between development and testing activities.

b & c are debugging activities, because they involve locating the cause of failure and fixing the defect in the software . Debugging is the process of finding and removing the causes of software failures . The other options are not debugging activities, but rather testing activities. Option A is a testing activity, because it involves identifying a failure in the software by comparing the expected and actual results . Option D is a testing activity, because it involves checking the fix has resolved the failure by re-testing the software .

 According to the syllabus, there are two main approaches for estimating test effort: metrics-based and expert-based. The metrics-based approach uses metrics from previous similar projects or industry data to calculate the test effort based on the size and complexity of the software under test. The expert-based approach relies on the experience and judgment of the owners of the testing tasks or subject matter experts who provide their estimates based on their knowledge of the software under test. The answer B is correct because it accurately describes the expert-based approach. The other answers are incorrect because they either confuse the metrics-based and expert-based approaches or describe them incorrectly.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 2.3.1, page 24-25.

 Load testing is the type of non-functional testing that would verify these requirements, because it measures how well the system performs under normal or expected load conditions1 . Load testing can verify whether up to 100 users can carry out a transaction simultaneously and whether the response time is within 5 seconds1 . The other options are not relevant types of non-functional testing for these requirements. Stress testing measures how well the system performs under extreme or abnormal load conditions1 . Maintenance testing verifies whether an operational system still works correctly after changes or updates1 . Usability testing evaluates how easy and user-friendly the system is for its intended users1 .

100% branch coverage means 100% statement coverage, but not vice-versa. Branch coverage is a stronger criterion than statement coverage, as it requires that every possible outcome of each decision point is executed at least once. Statement coverage only requires that every executable statement is executed at least once1 explains this as follows:

Branch Coverage (also known as Decision Coverage) measures which possible branches in flow control structures are followed. Branch Coverage is a testing method, which aims to ensure that each one of the possible branch from each decision point is executed at least once and thereby ensuring that all reachable code is executed.

Statement Coverage measures the number of statements in the source code that are executed during the test. Statement Coverage is a metric, which is used to calculate and measure the number of statements in the source code which have been executed during testing.

B, C, and D are false statements. 100% statement coverage does not mean 100% branch coverage (B), as there may be some branches that are not covered by the test cases. 100% branch coverage does not mean 100% statement coverage and vice-versa ©, as branch coverage implies statement coverage but not the other way around. It is possible to achieve 100% statement coverage (D), but it may not be feasible or cost-effective for some systems.

Integration testing is the process of testing the interactions between different components or subsystems of a system. Integration testing verifies that the interfaces work correctly, meaning that they pass data and control correctly between components or subsystems, and that they handle errors and exceptions properly. Integration testing can also verify the functionality and quality of the integrated system or subsystem.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 5.1.

Traceability between the test basis and test work products means that there is a clear and documented relationship between the requirements, design, and other sources of test conditions, and the test cases, test procedures, and test results that are derived from them. This helps to ensure that the test work products are consistent, complete, and relevant to the test basis. One of the direct benefits of maintaining traceability is the ability to analyse the impact of changes in the test basis on the test work products, and vice versa. For example, if a requirement is changed, added, or deleted, traceability can help to identify which test cases, test procedures, and test results need to be updated, executed, or removed accordingly. Similarly, if a test result reveals a defect in the test basis, traceability can help to locate the source of the defect and determine the scope of the correction. Traceability also supports other benefits, such as measuring test coverage, reporting test progress, and evaluating test quality, but these are not direct benefits of maintaining traceability, rather they are outcomes of using traceability information for various purposes. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.1.2, p. 23-24 1; ISTQB Glossary v4.0, p. 67 2

Exploratory testing is by definition a reactive test approach, because it involves designing and executing tests based on the tester’s knowledge, experience and intuition, and reacting to the actual behavior and feedback of the system under test. Exploratory testing does not follow a predefined test plan or test cases, but rather adapts to the situation and learns from the results.

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

Mr; Mrs.; Ms; any other input is the correct list of the equivalence classes of the input values for this field. Equivalence partitioning is a technique to divide the input domain into partitions that are expected to behave similarly or produce the same output. Each partition should have at least one representative value as a test case3 explains this as follows:

Equivalence Partitioning (or Equivalence Class Partitioning) is an software testing technique that divides the input data of a software unit into partitions of equivalent data from which test cases can be derived. In principle, test cases are designed to cover each partition at least once.

The fundamental concept of Equivalence Partitioning is that you can find more errors in a test case by using a representative value from an equivalence class than by using any other value from the class.

The input domain for this field can be divided into four partitions: Mr, Mrs., Ms, and any other input. The first three partitions are valid, as they are the only acceptable values for this field. The last partition is invalid, as it includes any value that is not Mr, Mrs., or Ms, such as Dr, Prof, Miss, etc.

To achieve 100% statement coverage, we need to execute every statement in the code at least once. To achieve 100% decision coverage, we need to execute every possible outcome of every decision in the code at least once. In this case, we can use the following test cases to cover both statement and decision coverage:

• A = 5, B = 4, C = 3, D = 2, E = 1
• A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, E = 5
• A = 3, B = 4, C = 5, D = 2, E = 1
• A = 3, B = 2, C = 1, D = 4, E = 5

These four test cases will cover all the statements and all the possible outcomes of the decisions in the code. Therefore, the minimum number of test cases required to achieve both statement and decision coverage is four.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.3.1

The correct answer is A, as it describes error guessing. Error guessing is an experience-based test technique that involves designing tests based on experience, defect data, or common knowledge about why software fails1. Error guessing can be used to complement other more formal test techniques by focusing on areas that are more likely to contain defects1. Option B is incorrect, as error guessing does not involve building test cases based on the various experiences of developers, architects, users, and other stakeholders on project teams, but based on the tester’s own experience and knowledge1. Option C is incorrect, as error guessing is not a suitable test technique that can be used effectively in place of more formal techniques, but a supplementary technique that can be used in addition to more formal techniques1. Option D is incorrect, as error guessing is not a valid and useful white-box test technique due to its high degree of statement coverage, but an experience-based test technique that does not rely on the structure of the software1. References: 1, Section 4.2.6

The statement that independent testing is necessary because developers don’t know any testing is wrong. Developers do know some testing, as they perform unit testing and component testing on their own code. However, independent testing is beneficial because it can provide a different perspective and a higher degree of objectivity than testing done by developers. Independent testers may have different skills, knowledge, experience, and expectations than developers, which can help them find different types of defects and improve the quality of the system.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 2.2

Statement testing and decision testing techniques are similar because both are structure-based testing techniques. Structure-based testing techniques, also known as white-box testing or code-based testing, are based on analyzing the internal structure and logic of the software code. Structure-based testing techniques aim to achieve a certain level of coverage of the code elements, such as statements, branches, paths, conditions, etc1 explains structure-based testing techniques as follows:

Structure-based testing techniques (also known as white-box testing techniques or code-based testing techniques) use the information of the internal structure of the component or system to derive test cases. They are commonly used at component testing and component integration testing levels, but can also be used at system and acceptance levels.

The main advantage of structure-based testing techniques is that they can reveal defects that are not easily found by other techniques, such as logic errors, incorrect assumptions, or incomplete paths. The main disadvantage of structure-based testing techniques is that they require access to the source code, which may not be available or feasible in some situations.

Statement testing is a structure-based testing technique that aims to cover all the executable statements in the code at least once. Decision testing is a structure-based testing technique that aims to cover all the possible outcomes of each decision in the code (true and false) at least once.

A, B, and D are incorrect answers. Specification-based testing techniques, experience-based testing techniques, and black box test design techniques are not similar to statement testing and decision testing techniques. Specification-based testing techniques are based on the requirements and functionality of the software rather than its structure and logic. Experience-based testing techniques are based on the knowledge and intuition of the testers rather than any formal analysis or criteria. Black box test design techniques are based on the external behavior and output of the software rather than its internal structure and logic.

Maintenance testing is triggered by changes, such as migration, retirement, or enhancement of a system1. Therefore, option A is the best example of a trigger for maintenance testing. Options B, C, and D are examples of triggers for development testing, not maintenance testing1. References: 1, Section 2.3.2

Test analysis and design is the phase of the test process where test cases and test data are designed and prioritized, based on the test basis and test objectives. Therefore, option C is correct, as it includes tasks I, II, and III. Option A is incorrect, as it includes tasks IV and V, which are part of test implementation and execution phase. Option B is incorrect, as it includes task IV, which is part of test implementation and execution phase. Option D is incorrect, as it does not include task III, which is part of test analysis and design phase.

References: [Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus], Section 2.2

The user interface being complicated and confusing is not an appropriate part of an incident report covering the observation of a failure during testing, as it is a subjective opinion and not a factual description of the failure. An incident report should include objective and relevant information that can help to identify, reproduce, and resolve the failure3 defines an incident report as follows:

An incident report is a document that records the occurrence of an abnormal or unexpected event during testing, such as a deviation from expected results, a defect in the system under test, or a problem in the test environment. An incident report typically includes the following information:

• Identifier: A unique identifier for the incident report.
• Summary: A brief description of the incident.
• Incident details: A detailed description of the incident, including the inputs, expected results, actual results, environment, date and time, severity, priority, and any other relevant information.
• Steps to reproduce: A sequence of steps that can be followed to reproduce the incident.
• Attachments: Any screenshots, logs, files, or other artifacts that can help to understand or reproduce the incident.

A unit test framework tool is a tool that supports the creation, execution and reporting of unit tests, which are tests that verify the functionality and quality of individual functions or methods in source code. A unit test framework tool can detect defects such as syntax errors, logic errors, boundary violations, etc.

A walkthrough is lead by a moderator and requires pre-meeting preparation and post meeting follow up is the statement that is not true about walkthroughs, because it describes a different type of review called inspection . A walkthrough is a type of informal review that involves the author of a document presenting it to a group of peers or stakeholders to establish a common understanding and to find possible defects . A walkthrough does not have a moderator, but rather an author who leads the review. A walkthrough does not require pre-meeting preparation or post meeting follow up, but rather relies on the author’s knowledge and skills . The other options are true statements about walkthroughs. Option B is true, because a walkthrough may take the form of scenarios, dry runs and peer group review, depending on the type and purpose of the document being reviewed . Option C is true, because the purpose of a walkthrough is to establish common understanding of a document and to find possible defects in it . Option D is true, because pre-meeting preparation, documentation and distribution of results are optional for a walkthrough, as they depend on the author’s discretion and preference .

The correct matching of the review types with the review characteristics is as follows:

• Pair review: Informal (2)
• Walkthrough: Purpose includes gaining consensus (3)
• Technical review: Purposes include improving the software product and training the review participants (4)
• Inspection: Formal (1)

Therefore, option C is the correct answer. Options A, B, and D are incorrect, as they do not match the review types with the review characteristics correctly.

References: Section 3.2.1

A functional test is a dynamic test for which the tests are based on the specification of the test object. This means that the test cases and test data are derived from the functional requirements, use cases, user stories, or other sources that describe the expected behavior and functionality of the system under test. A functional test is not focused on the efficiency of the system (that would be a performance test), nor is it a static comparison of test and requirements specification (that would be a review or inspection), nor is it based on the structure of the test object (that would be a structural test).

References:

• Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus - ISTQB Guru1, page 10
• Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) Syllabus - ASTQB2, page 65
• A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer3, page 77

This is an example of a failure, which is an event in which a component or system does not perform a required function within specified limits. In this case, the calculator software failed to perform the addition function correctly and gave an incorrect result.

Black-box test techniques are test techniques that are based on an analysis of the test basis without reference to the internal structure of the system under test. Decision table testing is a black-box test technique that uses a table showing combinations of inputs and/or stimuli (causes) with their associated outputs and/or actions (effects). Use case testing is a black-box test technique that uses scenarios based on use cases (descriptions of sequences of events that a system performs that yield an observable result of value to a particular actor). State transition testing is a black-box test technique that uses models of the state transitions and events of a system to design test cases.

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

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

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

A limitation in the use of static analysis tools is C. Static analysis tools always generate large numbers of warning messages when applied to new code, even if the code meets coding standards. Static analysis tools are tools that analyze the code or other software artifacts without executing them, and report any defects, errors, vulnerabilities, or violations of coding standards or conventions. Static analysis tools can help to improve the quality and maintainability of the code or other software artifacts. However, static analysis tools also have some limitations, such as generating large numbers of warning messages when applied to new code, even if the code meets coding standards or conventions. This can make it difficult for developers or testers to identify and prioritize the most important or critical issues to fix or address. A detailed explanation of static analysis tools can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 109-1101.

Metrics are quantitative measures that can be used to monitor and control various aspects of software testing processes and products1. Metrics can be used to monitor progress along with test preparation and execution by providing information about the status of testing activities, such as test planning, test design, test execution, test evaluation, defect management, etc1. Among the options given in this question, only C is a suitable metric for monitoring progress along with test preparation and execution. The failure rate in testing already completed is a metric that measures how many tests have failed out of the total number of tests executed1. This metric can indicate the quality of the software product under test and the effectiveness of the test cases1. It can also help to identify areas that need more attention or improvement in testing1. Therefore, this metric can be used to monitor progress along with test preparation and execution.

The question asks which of the test cases will ensure that the statement ‘Print ‘Hold’’ is exercised. The statement ‘Print ‘Hold’’ is executed when X > Y and Z < Y. Therefore, to exercise this statement, we need to choose a test case that satisfies these conditions. Among the options given in this question, only C satisfies these conditions. X = 42 > Y =43 and Z =42 < Y =43. Therefore, C is the correct answer.

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

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

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

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

•  The test objectives for user acceptance testing of the first release of a new software product aimed at a general market and built using Agile methods are D. c and d. User acceptance testing is a level of testing that involves users or customers validating that the software product meets their needs and expectations before accepting it for use or deployment. User acceptance testing can have different objectives depending on the context and purpose of the software product. For a new software product aimed at a general market and built using Agile methods, some possible objectives are:

A detailed explanation of user acceptance testing can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 79-80.

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

The application failed because of a defect in the purchase identification module caused by a programmer mistake or an error in the specification. A defect is a flaw or imperfection in a software product that causes it to fail to meet its requirements or expectations. A failure is an event or behavior of a software product that deviates from its requirements or expectations. An error is a human action or decision that produces a defect. A mistake is an incorrect action or decision that leads to an error. In this case, the application failed because it incorrectly counted purchase attempts, which was a defect in the purchase identification module. The defect was caused by either a programmer mistake (such as writing wrong code) or an error in the specification (such as defining wrong requirements). A detailed explanation of defects, failures, errors, and mistakes can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 5-6.

Dynamic analysis tools are used to find defects, such as memory leaks, while software is executing. Dynamic analysis tools monitor the behavior and performance of the software under various conditions and report on any anomalies or errors. Dynamic analysis tools are not used to determine differences between files or databases, which is a function of comparison tools. Dynamic analysis tools are not used to measure the percentage of specific types of code structure that have been exercised, which is a function of code coverage tools.

 Testers identify defects, developers locate and correct defects, testers confirm the correction has cleared the original defect. Debugging is the process of finding and fixing defects in a software product by analyzing its code or behavior. Debugging is usually performed by developers who have access to and knowledge of the code or structure of the software product. Debugging involves locating and correcting defects identified by testers during testing activities, and verifying that the correction has cleared the original defect without introducing new defects. Testers can also participate in debugging by providing information about how to reproduce defects, what are the expected results, what are the actual results, etc., and by confirming that defects have been fixed after debugging. A detailed explanation of debugging can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], page 6.

• The question asks which of the test cases will exercise both outcomes from decision 2. Decision 2 is represented by node B in the flow graph. Node B has two outcomes: edge 2 (P > Q) and edge 3 (P <= Q). Therefore, to exercise both outcomes from decision 2, we need to choose a test case that covers both edge 2 and edge

• Among the options given in this question, only B covers both edge 2 and edge
• In B, P =36 > Q =36 for edge 2 and P =37 <= Q =35 for edge
• Therefore, B is the correct answer.

Testing is the process of evaluating a software product by learning about it through exploration and experimentation, which includes running tests, observing outcomes, making inferences, and creating and refining test ideas. Testing has many objectives, such as finding defects, providing information, improving quality, reducing risks, etc. One of the objectives of testing is preventing defects, which means avoiding or minimizing the occurrence of defects in the software product by applying good practices and techniques throughout the software development life cycle. Preventing defects can help to save time, cost, and effort in testing and development, and improve customer satisfaction and confidence. A detailed explanation of testing objectives can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 7-8.

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

These are examples of exit criteria, which are the conditions that must be met before testing can be completed. Exit criteria may also include test coverage measures, residual risk assessment, or stakeholder approval. The other options are not exit criteria, but rather test planning activities.

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

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

Coverage of code, schedule, estimates of defect density. Exit criteria are the conditions that must be met before testing can be completed and the system can be released. Exit criteria can be based on factors such as coverage of code or requirements, schedule or budget constraints, estimates of defect density or severity, etc. Exit criteria help to determine when to stop testing and evaluate the quality of the system. A detailed explanation of exit criteria can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 15-161.

 Integration testing is a test level that accurately defines the integration testing test level1. Integration testing is a type of testing that verifies that different components or systems work together correctly and consistently1. The test basis for integration testing includes software and system design documents that specify how the components or systems are integrated and interact with each other1. The test objects for integration testing include interfaces between components or systems that enable data exchange or communication1. The tests for integration testing concentrate on the interactions between different parts of a system and check for functional, performance, reliability, security, compatibility, and interoperability issues1. Therefore, integration testing is a test level that accurately defines the integration testing test level.

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

Use-case testing is a technique that uses use-cases as a test basis to derive test cases2. A use-case is a description of interactions between actors and a system to achieve a goal2. An actor represents a type of user or anything that interacts with the system2. Use-cases are not the most common test basis for unit testing, as they are more suitable for higher levels of testing such as system or acceptance testing3. An actor is not always a human user, as it can also be another system or device2. Test cases can be based on use-case scenarios, which are sequences of actions and events that occur during a use-case execution2. Use-case testing will often identify gaps not found by testing individual components, as it can reveal missing or incorrect requirements, integration issues, and usability problems.

Testing can demonstrate that there are defects in the software, by finding and reporting them. Testing cannot demonstrate that there are no defects, because it is impossible to test all possible scenarios and inputs. Testing cannot demonstrate that the software is correct, because correctness is a subjective and relative concept that depends on the expectations and requirements of the stakeholders. Testing cannot demonstrate that there are no hidden defects in the software, because hidden defects are those that are not detected by testing or other quality assurance activities.

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

A potential infinite loop is a type of defect that can be typically identified using static analysis by tools1. Static analysis is a technique that examines the source code or other software artifacts without executing them, and can detect defects, vulnerabilities, code smells, and deviations from standards early in the development process1. Static analysis tools are software tools that automate the static analysis technique and provide various features and functionalities to support it1. Static analysis tools can identify a potential infinite loop by analyzing the control flow and data flow of the source code and checking for conditions or statements that may cause an endless repetition or iteration1. A potential infinite loop can cause serious problems in software performance, functionality, reliability, and security1. Therefore, a potential infinite loop is a type of defect that can be typically identified using static analysis by tools.

 Functional testing to test security at the system level, load testing at the system level to ensure the system availability is acceptable, regression testing at all levels, structure based testing at the component level only are the test types that will be required during the development1. A bank is developing a new service that will be delivered via the web. The user interactions are defined as a set of use cases and the service is designed to be available continuously 24/7. In view of the challenging characteristics of the service, the test manager has decided that the code should be thoroughly tested at component level. Therefore, the following test types will be required during the development:

• Functional testing to test security at the system level: This type of testing verifies that the software product performs its intended functions according to the user requirements and expectations1. Security is one of the functional aspects that needs to be tested at the system level, as it ensures that the software product protects itself from unauthorized access or harm1.
• Load testing at the system level to ensure the system availability is acceptable: This type of testing verifies that the software product can handle the expected or peak load of users or transactions without degrading its performance or functionality1. Availability is one of the quality attributes that needs to be tested at the system level, as it measures how well the software product performs its intended functions under specified conditions without interruption or failure1.
• Regression testing at all levels: This type of testing verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after changes or defect corrections1. Regression testing is required at all levels of testing, as changes or defect corrections can introduce new defects or affect existing functionality1.
• Structure based testing at the component level only: This type of testing uses the structure or logic of the source code as a test basis to derive test cases and measure test coverage1. Structure based testing is required at the component level only, as the test manager has decided that the code should be thoroughly tested at component level to ensure its quality and reliability1.

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

The process that ensures that all items of testware are identified, version controlled, tracked for changes, so that traceability can be maintained throughout the test process is D. Configuration management process. Configuration management is a process that establishes and maintains the integrity and consistency of all items of testware throughout the test process. Configuration management involves identifying, storing, controlling, tracking, and auditing all items of testware (such as test plans, test cases, test scripts, test data, test results, etc.) and their versions and changes. Configuration management helps to ensure that only authorized and approved items of testware are used for testing and that traceability can be maintained between them. A detailed explanation of configuration management can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 101-1021.

The minimum number of test cases required to guarantee both 100% statement coverage and 100% decision coverage is 2. Statement coverage means that every statement in the code is executed at least once by the test cases. Decision coverage means that every possible outcome of each decision (such as if-else statements) is executed at least once by the test cases. To achieve both statement and decision coverage, we need to test two scenarios: one where X > Y and one where X <= Y. This will ensure that all statements and decisions are covered by the test cases. A detailed explanation of statement and decision coverage can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 61-671.

Concerned with the behavior of a whole system/product as defined by the scope of a development project. System testing is a level of testing that evaluates the system as a whole against its requirements and specifications. System testing is performed after integration testing and before acceptance testing. System testing covers functional and non-functional aspects of the system, such as usability, performance, reliability, security, etc. A detailed explanation of system testing can be found in A Self-Study Guide For The ISTQB Foundation Exam Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) 2018 Syllabus, pages 75-782.

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