CTFL_Syll2018 ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (Syllabus 2018) Questions and Answers

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

 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 tool type is a category of tools that have similar features and functions and can be used for similar purposes. A test manager is a person who is responsible for planning, monitoring, controlling, and reporting the test activities and results. A test manager needs to use tools that can help them with these tasks and provide them with useful information and insights. Some examples of tool types that are useful for a test manager are:

• Defect tracking tool: This tool type allows the test manager to record, track, manage, and report the defects found during testing. It also helps the test manager to communicate with developers, testers, and other stakeholders about the defect status and resolution.
• Test management tool: This tool type allows the test manager to organize, manage, and control the test process and its outcomes. It also helps the test manager to define the test strategy, plan the test activities, allocate the test resources, schedule the test execution, monitor the test progress, and evaluate the test results.
• Requirements management tool: This tool type allows the test manager to manage and trace the requirements of the system under test. It also helps the test manager to ensure that the test objectives are aligned with the user needs and expectations and that the test coverage is adequate and complete.

The other tool types mentioned in the question are not as useful for a test manager as they are for other roles or purposes. For example:

• Modeling tool: This tool type allows the user to create graphical or textual representations of software systems or processes. It can be used for design, analysis, simulation, or documentation purposes.
• Static analysis tool: This tool type allows the user to examine the code or design of a software system without executing it. It can be used for finding defects, measuring complexity, checking compliance, or improving quality.
• Coverage measurement tool: This tool type allows the user to measure how much of the code or design of a software system has been exercised by a set of test cases. It can be used for evaluating the effectiveness or completeness of testing.

You can find more information about tool types in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 61.

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.

Test techniques are methods or procedures that can be used to design, execute, or evaluate test cases. Test techniques can be classified into two categories: specification-based and structure-based. Specification-based test techniques, also known as black-box test techniques, are based on the requirements, specifications, or expectations of the system under test. They do not require any knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system. Some examples of specification-based test techniques are use case testing, state transition testing, decision table testing, etc. Structure-based test techniques, also known as white-box test techniques, are based on the code, architecture, or design of the system under test. They require some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system. Some examples of structure-based test techniques are control flow testing, data flow testing, branch testing, statement testing, etc. You can find more information about test techniques in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 41.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Multiple condition coverage is a structure-based test technique that aims to achieve a high level of coverage by testing all possible combinations of conditions and outcomes in each decision point of the code or design of the system under test. Multiple condition coverage verifies that each condition in a decision point has an effect on the outcome and that there are no hidden defects or logical errors in the code or design. Multiple condition coverage requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the system under test; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does. Multiple condition coverage is one of the most rigorous and complex structure-based test techniques because it can generate a large number of test cases for each decision point, especially if there are many conditions involved. You can find more information about multiple condition coverage in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

II, III, and V are true statements about test reports. Test reports shall give stakeholders information as basis for decisions (II), as they provide an overview of the test results, the test coverage, the remaining risks, and the recommendations for the next steps. Test reports shall summarize what happened through a period of testing (III), as they describe the test activities, the test objectives, the test methods, the test environment, and the test incidents. Test reports shall include information about remaining risks (V), as they identify the areas of uncertainty or potential failure that may affect the quality or performance of the system under test1 defines a test report as follows:

A test report is a document that summarizes and communicates the outcomes of testing to stakeholders. A test report typically includes the following information:

• Test summary: A brief overview of the testing process, including the scope, objectives, approach, and results.
• Test evaluation: An evaluation of the testing process against the exit criteria and quality standards, including the test coverage, defect status, and risk assessment.
• Test conclusion: A conclusion on the suitability of the system under test for release or deployment, based on the test results and evaluation.
• Test recommendations: A recommendation on the actions to be taken after testing, such as fixing defects, conducting further testing, or implementing improvements.

I and IV are false statements about test reports. Test reports shall not be approved by the test team (I), as they are usually approved by a higher authority or a designated stakeholder who has the responsibility and authority to make decisions based on the test report. Test reports shall not be approved by the development team, the test team and the customer (IV), as this may cause conflicts of interest or delays in decision making.

25, 30, and 40 are the test data that show equivalence partitioning to verify if a customer is in their thirties or not. 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 case1 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 the age parameter can be divided into four partitions: less than or equal to zero, between one and 29, between 30 and 39, and greater than or equal to 40. The first and the last partitions are invalid, as they are outside the range of possible ages for human beings. The second and the third partitions are valid, as they are within the range of possible ages for human beings. The test data 25, 30, and 40 represent one value from each partition, covering both valid and invalid cases.

B, C, and D are incorrect answers. B does not include a representative value from the invalid partition greater than or equal to 40. C does not include a representative value from the invalid partition less than or equal to zero. D does not include a representative value from the valid partition between one and 29.

The best way to take advantage of the different mindsets of testers and developers is to bring the two mindsets together. Testers and developers have different perspectives and skills that can complement each other and improve the quality of the software. Testers tend to focus on finding defects and verifying the software against the requirements and specifications, while developers tend to focus on creating and implementing the software according to the design and architecture. By collaborating and communicating with each other, testers and developers can share their knowledge, feedback, and ideas, and resolve issues more efficiently and effectively.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 2.2

 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.

Testers being involved in reviewing documents as soon as they are approved is not a characteristic of good testing, independent of the development life cycle model. Testers should be involved in reviewing documents as soon as drafts are available, not after they are approved, as this can help to detect defects early, improve communication and collaboration, and reduce rework and costs2 states this as follows:

Testers should be involved in reviewing documents such as requirements specifications or user stories as soon as drafts become available in order to provide early feedback on testability aspects such as clarity, consistency, completeness, correctness, unambiguity etc.

Early involvement of testers in reviewing documents can help to prevent defects from being introduced into later phases of development or testing by identifying potential issues or gaps before they become embedded in the system under test.

A, B, and C are characteristics of good testing, independent of the development life cycle model. Each test level having objectives specific for the test level (A) ensures that testing is aligned with the purpose and scope of each level and provides clear criteria for success. Every development activity being matched by a corresponding testing activity (B) ensures that testing is integrated with development and provides continuous feedback on quality and progress. Testers being involved in reviewing documents as soon as drafts are available © ensures that testing is performed early and throughout the life cycle and provides input on testability aspects.

Cost can be regarded as an exit criterion, as it is one of the factors that can influence the decision to stop testing. Spending too much money on testing will result in an unprofitable product, and having cost as an exit criterion helps avoid this. The other options are incorrect, as the financial value of product quality can be estimated, the cost of testing can be measured effectively, and having cost as an exit criterion does not necessarily constrain the testing project or help achieve the desired quality level.

References: Section 2.2.1, Section 2.2.3

The general principles of testing state that testing can show the presence of defects, but not their absence. Running the same test set more often will not increase the likelihood of finding new defects, unless the system or its environment changes. Therefore, statement A contradicts the general principles of testing. Statement B is true, as testing is context-dependent and should be tailored to the specific situation of a project. Statement C is also true, as early testing can help prevent defects and reduce rework. Statement D is true, as it reflects the Pareto principle or the 80/20 rule, which states that most defects are found in a small subset of a system’s modules.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Section 1.2

This scenario is using a walkthrough review type and a perspective-based review technique. A walkthrough is a type of review that is relatively informal and led by the author of the work product. A perspective-based review technique is a technique that involves reviewing the work product from different viewpoints or perspectives of various stakeholders. The scenario matches these descriptions, as it involves an informal approach, a meeting leader who is the author of the requirements document, and a goal of improving the software application’s usability and accessibility by considering the various stakeholders’ viewpoints. Option A is incorrect, as a pair review is a type of review that involves only two people, usually the author and another team member. Option C is incorrect, as a checklist-based review technique is a technique that involves reviewing the work product against a predefined list of items or criteria. Option D is incorrect, as it combines the incorrect descriptions of options A and C.

References: , Section 3.2.1, Section 3.2.4

The correct answer is D, as it describes tools that support reviews. Tools that support reviews are tools that assist with performing static testing activities such as checking documents for defects or compliance with standards3. Examples of tools that support reviews are:

• Tools for document review and annotation
• Tools for document comparison and version control
• Tools for checklist management and defect tracking

Option A is incorrect, as it describes tools that support usability testing. Tools that support usability testing are tools that assist with performing dynamic testing activities related to how easy and user-friendly the software product is3. Examples of tools that support usability testing are:

• Tools for recording user actions and feedback
• Tools for analyzing user behavior and satisfaction
• Tools for simulating different user interfaces and devices

Option B is incorrect, as it describes tools that assess data quality. Tools that assess data quality are tools that assist with evaluating and improving the accuracy and completeness of data used for testing3. Examples of tools that assess data quality are:

• Tools for data validation and verification
• Tools for data cleansing and transformation
• Tools for data profiling and analysis

Option C is incorrect, as it describes tools that support specialized testing needs. Tools that support specialized testing needs are tools that assist with performing dynamic testing activities related to specific domains or technologies3. Examples of tools that support specialized testing needs are:

• Tools for security testing
• Tools for performance testing
• Tools for accessibility testing

References: 3, Section 2.10

State transition testing is the most suitable test technique for this situation. State transition testing is a technique that uses scenarios based on state diagrams to test the behavior of a system or component that can change its state in response to events or inputs. A state diagram is a graphical representation of the states that a system or component can be in, the events or inputs that can trigger a change of state (transitions), and the actions or outputs that can occur as a result of a change of state. In this case, the vending machine for light drinks can be modeled as a state diagram with states such as “idle”, “coins inserted”, “drink selected”, “drink dispensed”, “change returned”, “sold out”, etc., and transitions triggered by events such as “button pressed”, “coins inserted”, “drink dispensed”, “change returned”, etc. State transition testing can help design test cases that cover all the possible states and transitions of the vending machine and verify its functionality and usability.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.5.1

Functional and structural testing can both be applied at all test levels, from component testing to acceptance testing1 . Functional testing verifies whether the software meets the specified requirements and user expectations, while structural testing verifies whether the software meets the specified design and code standards1 . Both types of testing can be useful at any stage of the software development life cycle, depending on the test objectives and scope1 . The other options are incorrect, because they limit the application of functional and structural testing to certain test levels only.

Acceptance tests are the test types that call for involvement of an expert from the financial department for a new system that deals with all financial transactions in a company. Acceptance tests are tests conducted to determine if the requirements of a specification or contract are met by a system or software component prior to its delivery or deployment. Acceptance tests are usually performed by end users or customers who have domain knowledge and expertise in evaluating if the system meets their needs and expectations1 defines acceptance tests as follows:

Acceptance Testing is a level of software testing where a system is tested for acceptability. The purpose of this test is to evaluate the system’s compliance with the business requirements and assess whether it is acceptable for delivery.

Acceptance Testing is also known as User Acceptance Testing (UAT), End-User Testing, Operational Acceptance Testing (OAT) or Field (Acceptance) Testing.

Acceptance Testing is performed by end users or customers who have domain knowledge and expertise in evaluating if the system meets their needs and expectations.

A, C, and D are incorrect answers. Component testing, maintenance testing, and system testing are not test types that call for involvement of an expert from the financial department for a new system that deals with all financial transactions in a company. Component testing is testing of individual software components in isolation from other components, usually done by developers. Maintenance testing is testing of a modified system or component after changes have been made to it, usually done by testers. System testing is testing of an integrated system as a whole to verify that it meets specified requirements, usually done by testers.

To cover 100% statement coverage, we need to execute every statement in the code at least once. To cover 100% decision coverage, we need to execute every branch in the code at least once. The minimum number of test cases required to achieve both statement and decision coverage is 4 for statement and 5 for decision. Here is one possible set of test cases:

| Test Case | Input | Output | Statement Coverage | Decision Coverage | | TC1 | Walking = True, Midnight = False, Raining = False, Running = False | Take umbrella | S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 | D1-T, D2-T | | TC2 | Walking = False, Midnight = True, Raining = False, Running = False | Search light | S1, S2, S6, S7 | D1-F, D3-T | | TC3 | Walking = False, Midnight = False, Raining = True, Running = False | Take umbrella and search light | S1, S2, S6, S8, S9 | D1-F, D3-F, D4-T | | TC4 | Walking = False, Midnight = False, Raining = False, Running = True | Keep doing what you were doing | S1, S2, S6, S8, S10 | D1-F, D3-F, D4-F |

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a project management technique that decomposes a project into smaller and manageable tasks. It is not a factor that is used as a basis for estimating testing effort, but rather an outcome of the estimation process. The other options are factors that can influence the testing effort, such as the quality of the test basis, the requirements for documentation, and the skills of the test team.

References: Section 2.3, Section 2.4

For the code fragment given below, one test case is required for statement coverage and two test cases are required for branch coverage. Statement coverage requires that every executable statement in the code is executed at least once. Branch coverage requires that every possible outcome of each decision point in the code is executed at least once. The following table shows how to achieve statement and branch coverage for the code fragment:

Test Case

Input

Output

Statement Coverage

Branch Coverage

1

x = 3

y = 9

S1, S2, S3

T1 = true

2

x = 5

y = 25

S1, S2

T1 = false

As shown in the table, test case 1 covers all three statements (S1, S2, S3) in the code fragment, achieving 100% statement coverage. Test case 2 covers only two statements (S1, S2) in the code fragment, but it exercises a different outcome of the decision point T1 (if x < 4), achieving 100% branch coverage.

A test case is a set of preconditions, inputs, actions, expected results and postconditions developed based on test conditions. A test condition is a statement about what to test in terms of measurable coverage criteria from analysis of the test basis. A test plan is a description of the test objectives to be achieved and the means and the schedule for achieving them. A test oracle is a source to determine expected results to compare with the actual result of the system under test.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.2.1 and Glossary

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.

2-point boundary value analysis is a technique that tests the boundary values of valid and invalid partitions with two values each: one at the boundary and one just outside the boundary. For example, if the valid range is 1 to 10, the 2-point boundary values are 1, 2, 9, 10 for the valid partition, and 0, 11 for the invalid partitions. The advantage of this technique is that it reduces the number of test cases compared to 3-point boundary value analysis, which tests one value inside the boundary as well. However, it may miss some defects that occur only with the values inside the boundary.

In this question, the valid partitions are the ranges of spending that correspond to different discounts, and the invalid partitions are the ranges of spending that are below or above the valid partitions. The boundaries are the values of spending that trigger a change in the discount rate. The 2-point boundary values for each partition are:

• Invalid partition below £500: £0, £499
• Valid partition for 5% discount: £500, £501
• Valid partition for 10% discount: £1000, £1001
• Valid partition for 15% discount: £2000, £2001
• Valid partition for 20% discount: £4000, £4001
• Invalid partition above £4000: £4001, £4002

The test cases TC1 and TC2 already cover two of the boundary values: £500 and £2000. Therefore, to achieve 100% 2-point boundary value analysis, we need to write seven more test cases to cover the remaining boundary values: £0, £499, £501, £1000, £1001, £4000, and £4002. Note that £4001 is a boundary value for both the valid and invalid partitions, so we only need to test it once.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 4.2.2, p. 35-36 1; ISTQB Glossary v4.0, p. 16 2; Software Testing - Boundary Value Analysis 2

Explanation of Correct Answer: Decision table testing is a test design technique that can be used for effectively testing system requirements consisting of logical conditions. Decision table testing is based on the idea that the system behavior can be represented by a table, where each column corresponds to a possible combination of inputs and each row corresponds to the expected outputs for that combination. Decision table testing helps to identify and cover all possible scenarios and outcomes for a given requirement12.

References: 1: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 2018 v3.1.1, Section 4.3.2 2: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2

The overall quality of the software can be increased by finding and fixing defects before releasing the software to the customers or users. A test case passes means that no defect was found in the tested functionality, which indicates a high quality. A test case fails, defect gets logged which subsequently gets fixed means that a defect was found and corrected, which improves the quality. Some tests are deferred because test environment is not available means that some functionality was not tested, which may leave some defects undetected, which reduces the quality. A bug is found but there is no corresponding test case means that a defect was found by chance or by other means than planned testing, which does not increase the quality of the testing process or the test coverage.

The correct answer is D, as DT1 and DT4 would achieve full coverage of the full decision table when combined with the test cases that have already been generated for rules 1 and 4. Decision table testing is a black-box test technique that uses a table to show combinations of inputs and their associated outputs1. In this case, the inputs are the account type, the amount entered, and the expected result. The outputs are the actions taken by the ATM system. The decision table has eight rules, each corresponding to a possible combination of inputs and outputs. The test cases that have already been generated for rules 1 and 4 are:

• TC1: Account = Checking, Amount = $600, Expected Result = Process the transaction
• TC4: Account = Savings, Amount = Not entered, Expected Result = Generate an error message

The additional test cases are:

• DT1: Account = Checking, Amount = Not entered, Expected Result = Generate an error message
• DT2: Account = Savings, Amount = $100, Expected Result = Process the transaction
• DT3: Account = Checking, Amount = $100, Expected Result = Process the transaction
• DT4: Account = Savings, Amount = $600, Expected Result = Generate an error message

To achieve full coverage of the full decision table, two more test cases are needed that cover the remaining six rules. DT1 and DT4 cover these rules, as shown in the table below:

Therefore, option D is the correct answer. Options A, B, and C are incorrect, as they do not cover all the rules in the decision table. References: 1, Section 4.2.5

Functional and Structural tests are two different test design techniques, not test levels or test types. They can be applied at any test level (Unit, Integration, System, Acceptance) and for any test type (Functional, Non-functional, Regression, Maintenance). Therefore, option A is the correct answer. Option B is incorrect because Functional tests can be performed at any test level, not just Unit and Integration. Option C is incorrect because Functional and Structural are not test levels, but test design techniques. Option D is incorrect because Structural tests can be performed at any test level, not just Unit.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018 v3.1.1, Chapter 4.1.2 Test Design Techniques1

Maintenance testing is important after migration, retirement or enhancement of an existing system. defines maintenance testing as follows:

Maintenance testing is a type of software testing that occurs after changes have been made to a system in order to ensure that no new defects have been introduced and that the system still meets its original requirements and specifications.

Regression testing (A) is important after any change in the system that may affect existing functionality. Operational acceptance testing (B) is important before deploying a system into production environment. System testing © is important after integrating all components of a system into a complete system.

• Defect 1: Missing test case for validation failure of ‘Password’ field being blank. According to checklist item C2, there must be one test case for each error path. The test basis document specifies that the ‘Password’ field must be mandatory, and that if it is blank, Error Number 13 should be displayed. However, none of the test cases cover this scenario. Therefore, a test case for this validation failure is missing and should be added.
• Defect 2: Incorrect field name in TC3. According to checklist item C3, each test case must use terminology consistent with the test basis document. The test basis document uses the term ‘User Name’ to refer to the field that identifies the user. However, TC3 uses the term ‘User Id’, which is inconsistent and confusing. Therefore, TC3 should be corrected to use the term ‘User Name’ instead of ‘User Id’.
• Defect 3: Incorrect error number in TC3. According to checklist item C3, each test case must use terminology consistent with the test basis document. The test basis document specifies that if the ‘User Name’ entered does not exist on the database, Error Number 12 should be displayed. However, TC3 states that Error Number 23 should be displayed, which is incorrect and does not match the test basis document. Therefore, TC3 should be corrected to use Error Number 12 instead of Error Number 23.

Statement coverage is a white-box test technique which focuses on the percentage of executable statements that has been executed by a test suite. This is the best description of statement coverage, as it measures how many statements in the source code have been covered by one or more test cases. Option A is incorrect, as it describes state transition testing, which is a black-box test technique that uses a state table to derive test cases. Option B is incorrect, as it describes error guessing, which is an experience-based test technique in which test cases are based on the tester’s knowledge of past failures. Option D is incorrect, as it describes decision coverage, which is a white-box test technique that covers the decision results which determine the next statement to be executed.

References: , Section 4.2.2

If the fault in the code is contained in a small area, then it may cause the system to fail under certain circumstances, resulting in a defect1 . However, this is not a definite consequence, as it depends on whether the fault is executed or not. The other options are not definite consequences of this mistake either. Option A assumes that the system will always fail because of the fault, which may not be true if the fault is never executed or does not affect critical functionality1 . Option C assumes that there will be negative impacts on money, time, or business reputation because of the fault, which may not be true if the defect is minor or does not affect important stakeholders1 . Option D assumes that contractual requirements have not been met by testing because of the fault, which may not be true if testing has fulfilled its objectives and scope according to the contract1 .

It describes how test cases are derived from a use case. A use case is a description of a set of sequences of actions, including variants, that a system performs to yield an observable result of value to an actor1. An actor can be a human user or another system. Test cases are designed to cover various user behaviors, including basic, exceptional or alternative and error behaviors associated with each use case1. Option A is incorrect, as test cases derived from a use case are not based on non-functional requirements such as usability, but on functional requirements that describe what the system does1. Option C is incorrect, as test cases derived from a use case are not created using white-box test techniques, but using black-box test techniques that focus on the inputs and outputs of the system1. Option D is incorrect, as test cases derived from a use case are not based on pair testing, which is a technique that involves two testers working together to find defects1. References: 1, Section 4.2.4

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.

Defect density is a metric that measures the number of defects identified in the system under test divided by the size of the system. The size of the system can be measured in different ways, such as lines of code, function points, or modules. Defect density can be used to compare the quality of different systems or different versions of the same system.

References: [Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus], Section 8.3.1

 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 .

Checking that at least 50% of decisions have been exercised by a test case suite is not a valid use of decision coverage, because it does not meet the minimum criterion of decision coverage, which is to exercise all possible outcomes of each decision in the software under test1 . Decision coverage is a technique that measures how much of the logic or branching of the software under test has been exercised by the test cases1 . The other options are valid uses of decision coverage. Option A is a valid use of decision coverage, because it can check that all decisions have been exercised in a single program1 . Option B is a valid use of decision coverage, because it can check that all decisions have been exercised in a business process1 . Option C is a valid use of decision coverage, because it can check that all calls from one program module to another have been made correctly1 .

Statement testing is a white box test technique2. A white box technique is a technique that uses the internal structure or logic of a system as a test basis to derive test cases and measure test coverage2. Statement testing is a technique that uses executable statements in the source code as a test basis to measure the coverage achieved by a test suite2. A statement is an instruction or command that performs an action or calculation in the source code2. Statement testing requires every statement in the source code to be executed at least once by a test suite2. Therefore, statement testing is a white box test technique.

According to the syllabus, an independent test team is a group of testers who are not involved in the development of the software system under test. They perform testing activities from an external perspective, without any bias or influence from the developers or users. An independent test team can have various benefits and drawbacks, depending on the context and situation. The answer C is correct because it lists two benefits and two drawbacks of an independent test team. The benefits are:

• Independent testers can find different defects, because they have a different view and knowledge of the system than the developers or users.
• Independent testers can verify assumptions made during the specification of a system, because they can challenge and validate the requirements and design decisions.

The drawbacks are:

• Developers may put less emphasis on quality, because they may rely on the independent testers to find and fix the defects.
• Independent testers can be seen as the reason for delayed projects, because they may report defects late in the development cycle or demand more time for testing.

The other answers are incorrect because they mix benefits and drawbacks or list incorrect statements.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 1.4.1, page 14-15.

A main objective of a pilot project for introducing a new test tool into an organization is to learn more detail about the tool and how it fits with existing processes. states this as follows:

A pilot project should be conducted before introducing a new test tool into an organization in order to learn more about how to use it effectively and efficiently in your context and how it will interact with other tools and processes.

A pilot project is not meant to immediately save cost for current projects in your organisation (A), as it may require additional resources and time to set up and evaluate the tool. A pilot project is not meant to show competitors that your organisation is improving its test process (B), as it is an internal activity that may not be visible or relevant to external parties. A pilot project is not meant to motivate the test team and make testers feel valued ©, as it may cause resistance or frustration if the tool is not suitable or easy to use.

A typical characteristic of the walkthrough review type is that the meeting is led by the author. A walkthrough is a type of informal review that involves a presentation of a work product by the author to peers and other stakeholders for feedback and comments. The author leads the meeting and explains the work product to the participants, who can ask questions and make suggestions for improvement. The author may also record any issues or action items during the meeting. A walkthrough does not require formal preparation or follow-up by the participants, nor does it have defined entry and exit criteria.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 3.2.2

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.

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.

Exploratory testing can replace black box techniques when testing time is very limited, because it is a type of experience-based technique that allows testers to design and execute tests based on their intuition, knowledge, and skills, without following a predefined test plan or test cases13. The other options are false statements about testing techniques. Option B is false, because test execution scheduling should give priority to specification-based or structure-based techniques, which are more systematic and objective than experience-based techniques13. Option C is false, because specification-based techniques cannot be used as a substitute for a poorly defined test basis, but rather require a clear and complete test basis to design effective test cases13. Option D is false, because experience-based techniques are not systematic and do not produce detailed test documentation, but rather rely on the tester’s judgement and creativity

 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.

 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.

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.

 Likelihood of failure = 10%, potential cost of impact = $500,000. The level of risk to the project can be calculated by multiplying the likelihood of failure by the potential cost of impact. This gives us the following values for each option:

A. 1% x $1m = $10,000 B. 10% x $500,000 = $50,000 C. 20% x $150,000 = $30,000 D. 5% x $500,000 = $25,000

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.

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.

The fundamental test process is a generic model that describes the main activities and tasks involved in testing. The fundamental test process consists of five phases: planning and control, analysis and design, implementation and execution, evaluation of exit criteria and reporting, and test closure activities. Implementation and execution is the phase where test cases and test procedures are implemented according to test specifications and executed on the system or component under test using test tools or manual methods. Implementation and execution also involves verifying that the test environment set up is correct, which means ensuring that the test environment (such as hardware, software, network, data, etc.) is ready and suitable for testing the system or component under test. A detailed explanation of implementation and execution can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 19-21.

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.

The main reason for using a pilot project to introduce a testing tool into an organization is C. To assess whether the tool will be cost-effective. A pilot project is a small-scale trial or experiment that is used to evaluate the feasibility, benefits, risks, and challenges of introducing a testing tool into an organization. A pilot project can help to assess whether the tool will be cost-effective, by comparing the costs of acquiring, deploying, using, and maintaining the tool with the benefits of using the tool, such as increased efficiency, effectiveness, quality, etc. A pilot project can also help to identify any technical, organizational, or human factors that may affect the successful adoption of the tool, and plan for any necessary actions or changes to address them. A detailed explanation of pilot projects can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 115-1161.

A test condition is an item or event of a component or system that can be verified by one or more test cases. A test condition can be derived from various sources of information, such as requirements, specifications, design documents, use cases, user stories, etc. A test condition can also be based on various aspects of a component or system, such as functionality, usability, performance, reliability, security, etc.

The other statements are not true about test conditions because they describe different concepts related to testing. For example:

• B. The grouping of a composite set of test cases which, when tested as a whole, reveal a positive or negative result: This statement describes a test suite, which is a collection of test cases that are intended to be executed together to achieve a specific test objective or goal.
• C. A testable component derived from business requirements: This statement describes a test basis, which is the source of information or data that provides the basis for designing and executing test cases.
• D. Applies to software testing only: This statement is false because test conditions can apply to any type of testing, not just software testing. Test conditions can also be used for testing hardware, systems, processes, etc.

You can find more information about test conditions in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.1.

Decision coverage is a structure-based test technique that involves testing every decision point in the code by testing all possible outcomes or branches of each decision point. Decision coverage 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 pseudo code given in the question has one decision point at line 4, where the value of Gender is compared to ‘female’. This decision point has two possible outcomes or branches:

• True branch: If Gender = ‘female’, then print “Ms” at line 5.
• False branch: If Gender != ‘female’, then print “Mr” at line 7.

To achieve 100 per cent decision coverage, we need to test both outcomes or branches of the decision point at least once. Therefore, we need two test cases that cover both scenarios:

• TC1: Gender = ‘female’ -> Print “Dear Ms”
• TC2: Gender = ‘male’ -> Print “Dear Mr”

The other options are not correct because they do not provide enough or too many test cases to achieve 100 per cent decision coverage. For example:

• A. 1: This option is not enough because it only provides one test case that covers one outcome or branch of the decision point, but not the other.
• C. 3: This option is too many because it provides three test cases that cover both outcomes or branches of the decision point, but one of them is redundant or unnecessary.
• D. 4: This option is too many because it provides four test cases that cover both outcomes or branches of the decision point, but two of them are redundant or unnecessary.

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

A circumstance where maintenance testing is required is A. Migration of software onto a new platform. Migration of software onto a new platform is a type of change that affects the delivered software product and requires maintenance testing to ensure that the software product still works correctly and consistently on the new platform. A new platform can be a different hardware, operating system, network, database, browser, etc., that supports or interacts with the software product. Migration of software onto a new platform can introduce compatibility issues, performance issues, security issues, etc., that need to be detected and resolved by maintenance testing. A detailed explanation of migration testing can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], page 82.

To be based on an analysis of the structure of the component or system. White box testing techniques are based on the internal structure and code of the system, not on its specifications or functionality. White box testing techniques include statement coverage, decision coverage, branch coverage, path coverage, etc. White box testing techniques are usually performed at lower levels of testing, such as unit testing or component testing. A detailed explanation of white box testing techniques can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 68-74.

Static analysis is a technique to find defects in software source code and software models, performed without executing code. Static analysis can be done manually or automatically using tools that examine the code or design of a software system without running it. Static analysis can help identify and prevent defects, measure complexity, check compliance, or improve quality.

The other statements are not correct definitions of static analysis because they describe different concepts related to testing. For example:

• A. The decision between using white or black box test techniques: This statement describes a test strategy, which is an approach or method for designing and executing test cases based on various factors, such as scope, objectives, risks, resources, etc.
• B. Executing software to validate the most common path through the code: This statement describes dynamic testing, which is a technique to find defects in software by executing it under various conditions and inputs and comparing the actual results with the expected results.
• D. It is a testing technique used during system testing: This statement describes a test level, which is a group of test activities that are organized and managed together based on some criteria, such as objectives, scope, target audience, etc.

You can find more information about static analysis in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 6, Section 6.3.

Planning and control, analysis, design, implementation, execution, evaluation of exit criteria and reporting, test closure. The fundamental test process is a generic model that describes the main activities and tasks involved in testing. The fundamental test process consists of five phases: planning and control, analysis and design, implementation and execution, evaluation of exit criteria and reporting, and test closure activities. Each phase has specific objectives, inputs, outputs, and deliverables. A detailed explanation of the fundamental test process can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 13-241.

Software testing contributes to the quality of delivered software by identifying root causes of defects from past projects and using the lessons learned to improve processes and thus help to reduce the defect count. Software testing is a process of verifying and validating that a software product meets the specified requirements and expectations of the stakeholders1. Software testing can detect defects in the software product and provide information about its quality1. Software testing can also identify root causes of defects from past projects and use the lessons learned to improve processes and thus help to reduce the defect count1. This can be done by using techniques such as root cause analysis, defect prevention, causal analysis, process improvement, etc1. These techniques can help to identify and eliminate the sources of defects in the software development lifecycle and prevent them from recurring in future projects1. Therefore, software testing contributes to the quality of delivered software by identifying root causes of defects from past projects and using the lessons learned to improve processes and thus help to reduce the defect count.

The test tools that would be classified as test execution tools are D. b and d. Test execution tools are tools that automate the execution of test cases or test scripts, and compare the actual results with the expected results. Test execution tools can also record and replay user actions, generate test data, and report test results. Test harness and test comparators are examples of test execution tools. A test harness is a tool that creates a test environment for a component or system under test, by simulating the required dependencies, such as stubs, drivers, or mock objects. A test comparator is a tool that compares the actual outputs of a component or system under test with the expected outputs, and reports any differences or anomalies. A detailed explanation of test execution tools can be found in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, pages 111-1121.

Testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification as soon as the UAT specification has been drafted1. UAT stands for user acceptance testing, which is a type of testing that verifies that the software product meets the acceptance criteria and expectations of the end users or customers1. A UAT specification is a document that defines the scope, objectives, approach, and criteria for UAT1. Testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification as soon as the UAT specification has been drafted, as this can help to ensure that the UAT specification is clear, complete, consistent, testable, and aligned with the user requirements1. Testers can also provide feedback and suggestions to improve the UAT specification and avoid potential issues or conflicts during UAT execution1. Therefore, testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification as soon as the UAT specification has been drafted.

• 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.

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.

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.

The testing effort required to test a software product depends on various factors, such as the size and complexity of the product, the quality of the requirements and design documents, the testability of the product, the test strategy and scope, the test environment and tools, the skills and experience of the testers, and the quality expectations and standards of the stakeholders1. Among these factors, the requirements for reliability and security in the product will most affect the testing effort required to test a software product1. Reliability and security are quality attributes that measure how well a software product performs its intended functions under specified conditions and protects itself from unauthorized access or harm1. Testing for reliability and security requires more rigorous and thorough testing techniques, such as reliability testing, security testing, penetration testing, stress testing, etc1. These techniques may require more time, resources, tools, and skills to perform effectively1. Therefore, the requirements for reliability and security in the product will most affect the testing effort required to test a software product.

 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.

A valid reason for writing test cases based on experience and intuition is C. Tests based on experience and intuition can supplement formal techniques. Experience and intuition are valuable sources of test ideas that can help testers to identify potential risks, errors, or scenarios that may not be covered by formal techniques. Formal techniques are systematic methods that use rules or algorithms to derive test cases from the test basis (such as specifications, code, etc.). Formal techniques include black-box techniques (such as equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, etc.) and white-box techniques (such as statement coverage, decision coverage, etc.). Formal techniques can provide a high level of coverage and consistency, but they may not be able to capture all possible situations or behaviors of the system or component under test. Therefore, tests based on experience and intuition can supplement formal techniques by adding more diversity and creativity to the test cases. A detailed explanation of experience-based testing techniques can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 74-76.

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.

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.

These are the four test levels defined for a common V-model testing approach, according to the ISTQB Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus. Unit testing is another term for component testing, and maintenance testing is not a test level, but a type of testing that can be performed at any level.

 These are some of the factors that should be considered to determine whether enough testing has been performed. The exit criteria define the specific goals and requirements for testing completion. The budget limits the resources and time available for testing. The product’s risk profile indicates the areas of highest priority and impact for testing. Sufficient details of the system status allow decisions on whether further testing is needed or not. The other options are not relevant factors for determining enough testing.

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.

The statement that best characterizes maintenance testing is A. Maintenance testing is triggered by changes to delivered software and uses impact analysis to minimize the amount of regression testing needed. Maintenance testing is a type of testing that is performed on a software product after it has been delivered to the customer or user, and aims to ensure that the software product still meets its requirements and expectations after any changes or modifications. Maintenance testing is triggered by changes to delivered software, such as bug fixes, enhancements, patches, updates, etc., and uses impact analysis to determine the scope and extent of regression testing needed. Impact analysis is a technique that analyzes the potential effects of changes on the existing software product and its components, dependencies, interfaces, etc., and identifies which parts of the software product need to be retested or modified. Impact analysis helps to minimize the amount of regression testing needed by focusing on the most affected or critical parts of the software product. A detailed explanation of maintenance testing can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 81-82.

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.

 S2 and O2 are the finishing state and the output(s) from the test case1. The question asks about a test case that starts at S1 and triggers 4 events in sequence: E1, E4, E5, E7. The question refers to a state diagram that shows the logic of a system with six states (S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6) and seven events (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7). The state diagram also shows four outputs (O1, O2, O3, O4) that are produced by some events. The state diagram is shown below:

!state diagram

To answer this question, we need to follow the path of the test case on the state diagram and observe the state transitions and outputs that occur. The path of the test case is:

• Start at S1
• Trigger E1
• Transition to S2
• Trigger E4
• Transition to S3
• Trigger E5
• Transition to S2
• Output O2
• Trigger E7
• Transition to S6

Therefore, the finishing state of the test case is S2 and the output(s) from the test case is O2. Hence, D is the correct answer.

Each review has clear defined objectives, the right people for the review objective are involved, and there is an emphasis on learning and process improvement are typically found to enable the review process to be successful1. A review is a type of static testing that involves the examination of software artifacts by humans to find defects, improve quality, or achieve other objectives1. A review process should have clear defined objectives that specify the purpose, scope, and expected outcomes of the review1. The right people for the review objective should be involved, such as reviewers, moderators, authors, managers, etc., who have the appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, and roles to perform the review effectively1. There should also be an emphasis on learning and process improvement, as reviews can provide feedback and suggestions to improve the software artifacts, processes, and skills of the participants1. Therefore, these characteristics are typically found to enable the review process to be successful.

UAT stands for user acceptance testing, which is a type of testing that verifies that the software product meets the acceptance criteria and expectations of the end users or customers1. A UAT specification is a document that defines the scope, objectives, approach, and criteria for UAT1. Testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification at any time before UAT begins, as this can help to ensure that the UAT specification is clear, complete, consistent, testable, and aligned with the user requirements1. Testers can also provide feedback and suggestions to improve the UAT specification and avoid potential issues or conflicts during UAT execution1. Therefore, testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification at any time before UAT begins.