iSQI CTFL_Syll_4.0 Dumps

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

Using the given5:3 ratio:

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

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

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

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

The decision table provides conditions and corresponding actions. For C2:

The user is logged in (Yes).

The user is not authorized to view the profile (No).

The correct action should be not to display the profile (No) and to display an error message (Yes).

This matches the actions listed for C2, making it the correct condition with the proper actions​​.

 State testing techniques are a type of dynamic testing techniques that are based on the behavior of the system under test for different input conditions and events. Dynamic testing techniques require the system to be executed with test cases, whereas static testing techniques do not. Static testing techniques can be applied before the code is ready for execution, such as reviews, inspections, walkthroughs, and static analysis. Static testing techniques can help find defects early in the development process, improve the quality of the code, and reduce the cost and effort of dynamic testing. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, Page 281; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Page 292

This answer is correct because shift-left in testing is an approach that aims to perform testing activities as early as possible in the software development lifecycle, in order to find and fix defects faster and cheaper, and to improve the quality of the software product. Continuous integration is a practice that supports shift-left in testing, as it involves integrating and testing the software components frequently, usually several times a day, using automated tools and processes. Continuous integration can reduce the time between the introduction of a defect and its detection, thereby reducing the cost to fix it and the risk of accumulating defects that could affect the functionality or performance of the software product. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.3, Section 3.2.1.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

A static analysis tool is best suited for determining source code compliance with the guidelines provided by a coding standard. Static analysis tools analyze code without executing it, checking for adherence to coding standards, potential errors, and code quality issues. They are designed to detect deviations from predefined coding standards and ensure that the code conforms to best practices and guidelines.

Static analysis requires access towork products like source code, models, or documentation, making itimpossible to analyze Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software(A) because its source code is typically unavailable. Static analysis is applicable to source code (B), BPMN models (C), and UML diagrams (D).

Statement testingaims to executeevery executable statementin the source code at least once.

(D) is correctas statement testing ensuresmaximum statement execution.

(A) describes branch testing, which focuses on flow transfers.

(B) and (C) incorrectly mix decision testing and branch testing concepts.

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

This answer is correct because it follows the logical dependencies and allows executing the test cases in priority order. TC4, TC3, and TC2 are executed first because they have the highest priority. TC6 is executed next because it has a logical dependency on TC2. TC1 is executed next because it has a logical dependency on TC5. Finally, TC5 is executed last because it has the lowest priority. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement coverage, also known as line coverage, is a metric used in white-box testing to measure the percentage of executable statements in the source code that have been executed by the test suite. Achieving a certain percentage of statement coverage means that an equivalent percentage of the executable statements in the code have been executed during testing.

For example, achieving 80% statement coverage indicates that 80% of the lines of code have been run through during the testing process. This metric helps in identifying parts of the code that have not been tested and may contain undetected defects.

It's important to note that achieving high statement coverage does not necessarily guarantee that all possible paths or scenarios within the code are tested, nor does it ensure the detection of all types of defects. Other coverage metrics, such as branch coverage or condition coverage, might also be necessary to achieve a more thorough testing process.

Theplanning phase of the review process(C) includes defining thereview’s purpose, scope, and exit criteriato ensure alignment.Option Ais part of the defect management phase,Bhappens during individual preparation, andDtakes place in the review meeting.

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

When a document management system is decommissioned, maintenance testing must include data migration testing to ensure that all documents are correctly transferred to a state archive, meeting legal requirements for long-term storage. This process verifies that data integrity is maintained during migration.

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

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

A factor that contributes to a successful review is ensuring that all participants are trained to understand the review type and its objectives. This training helps participants to effectively contribute to the review process, identify issues, and suggest improvements. Proper training also fosters a constructive and collaborative review environment.

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

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

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

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

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

A defect report should contain relevant details to help developersreproduce and fix the defect efficiently. The essential elements include:

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

Title & summary (B)– For quick identification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atest progress reportprovides an overview of testing activities, metrics, and identified risks. It focuses on tracking testing progress rather thanevaluating overall product quality (B), which is typically included in atest summary reportafter testing is completed.

(A) is correctbecause obstacles (challenges) are reported to ensure test execution stays on track.

(C) is correctas test metrics help stakeholders track execution progress.

(D) is correctbecause new or changed risks impact test focus and priorities.

A test progress reporttracks execution and informs stakeholders about ongoing testing activities.

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

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

Using the given values, the expected value is:

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

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

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

Using the given values, the standard deviation is:

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

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

Expected value ± standard deviation

Using the calculated values, the range is:

30 ± 8 person hours

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

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

“Confirmation testing confirms that an original defect has been successfully fixed… Regression testing confirms that no adverse consequences have been caused by a change… These adverse consequences could affect the same component where the change was made, other components in the same system, or even other connected systems.”

(ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.2.3 – Confirmation Testing and Regression Testing, Page 30)

 Static testing is a form of testing that does not involve executing the software or system under test. It includes activities such as reviews, inspections, walkthroughs, and analysis of documents, code, and models. Static testing can find defects early in the development process, before they become more expensive and difficult to fix in later stages. Static testing can also improve the quality of the software or system by preventing defects from being introduced in the first place. Static testing can complement dynamic testing, which involves executing the software or system under test and checking the results against expected outcomes. Dynamic testing can find defects that static testing may miss, such as performance, usability, or integration issues. However, dynamic testing alone is not sufficient to ensure quality, as it may not cover all possible scenarios, inputs, or paths. Therefore, a test manager who decides to skip static testing is making a wrong decision, as he or she is ignoring the benefits of static testing and relying solely on dynamic testing, which may not be effective or efficient enough to find andprevent defects. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 4.0, 2018, Section 2.1.1, page 14; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, page 36; ISTQB CTFL 4.0 - Sample Exam - Answers, Version 1.1, 2023, Question 3, page 9.

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

Just below the minimum value (9)

At the minimum value (10)

Just above the minimum value (11)

Just below the maximum value (4999)

At the maximum value (5000)

Just above the maximum value (5001)

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

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

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

The other options are incorrect because:

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

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

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

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

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

(x \leq -100)

(-100 < x < 100)

(100 \leq x < 1000)

(x \geq 1000)

Option D provides a value from each of these partitions:

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

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

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

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

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

Covering all transitions at least once is the highest coverage criterion for state transition based test cases, because it ensures that every possible change of state is tested at least once. This means that all the events that trigger the transitions, as well as the actions and outputs that result from the transitions, are verified. Covering all transitions at least once also implies covering all states at least once, but not vice versa. Therefore, option D is not the highest coverage criterion. Option C is the lowest coverage criterion, because it only tests the initial and final states of the system or component, without checking the intermediate states or transitions. Option A is incorrect, because the coverage criteria for state transition based test cases can be determined and compared based on the number of transitions and states covered. References = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 4.2.3, page 49-50.

State transition testing validatesvalid and invalid state transitionsbased on defined rules.

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

Other options follow valid sequences according tostate transition rules.

This answer is correct because static testing and dynamic testing are both types of testing that can be used to highlight issues associated with non-functional characteristics, such as usability, performance, security, reliability, etc. Static testing is a type of testing that involves the analysis of software work products, such as requirements, design, code, or test cases, without executing them. Dynamic testing is a type of testing that involves the execution of software work products, such as code or test cases, using inputs and verifying outputs. Both static testing anddynamic testing can be applied to different test levels and test types, and can use different test techniques and tools, to evaluate the non-functional characteristics of the software product. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.2.1.1, Section 2.2.1.2

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

Option A:Calculating the arithmetic mean of all estimates.

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

Option B:Selecting the most frequent estimate value.

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

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

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

Option D:Discussing the most pessimistic and optimistic estimates.

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

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

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

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

Effort estimate does not depend on the budget of the project, but rather on the scope, complexity, and quality of the software product and the testing activities1. Budget is a constraint that may affect the feasibility and accuracy of the effort estimate, but it is not a factor that determines the effort estimate. Effort estimate is the amount of work required to complete the testing activities, measured in terms of person-hours, person-days, or person-months2.

The other options are correct because:

A. Once the test effort is estimated, resources can be identified and a schedule can be drawn up, as they are interrelated aspects of the test planning process3. Resources are the people,tools, equipment, and facilities needed to perform the testing activities4. Schedule is the time frame and sequence of the testing activities, aligned with the project milestones and deadlines5.

B. Effort estimate can be inaccurate because the quality of the product under tests is not known, as it affects the number and severity of the defects that may be found and the rework that may be needed to fix them6. Quality is the degree to which the software product satisfies the specified requirements and meets the needs and expectations of the users and clients7.

D. Experience based estimation is one of the estimation techniques, which relies on the judgment and expertise of the testers and other project stakeholders to estimate the test effort based on similar projects or tasks done in the past. Experience based estimation can be useful when there is a lack of historical data, formal methods, or detailed information about the software product and the testing activities.

References =

1 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 154

2 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 155

3 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 156

4 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 157

5 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 158

6 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 159

7 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 16

[8] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 160

[9] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 161

Static testing involves reviewing the code, requirements, and design documents without executing the code. It is effective in finding certain types of bugs that do not require the code to be run. One common example of such a bug is variables that are declared but not initialized. These issues can be detected through code inspections or static analysis tools, which can identify uninitialized variables, missing declarations, and other coding standard violations without the need to execute the code​​.

The document that describes the test procedures, including the order in which test cases are to be executed according to dependencies described by preconditions and postconditions, is typically produced during the test implementation phase. During this phase, detailed test procedures and scripts are developed, organized, and prioritized for execution. The main goal of test implementation is to ensure that all test cases are prepared and structured in a way that supports efficient and effective test execution.

A pilot project is a small-scale experiment or trial that is conducted to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and suitability of a test automation tool before implementing it on a larger scale1.

The objectives of a pilot project may vary depending on the context and scope of the test automation initiative, but some common ones are2:

To get familiar with the functionality and options of the tool

To check how the tool fits to the existing test processes and environment

To assess the benefits and challenges of using the tool

To decide upon standards and guidelines for tool implementation and usage

To estimate the costs and resources required for tool deployment and maintenance

Therefore, option C is not a valid objective of a pilot project, as it is not necessary to train all testers on using the tool at this stage. Training all testers on using the tool would be more appropriate after the tool has been selected and approved for full-scale implementation, and after the standards and guidelines have been established. Training all testers on using the tool during the pilot project would be inefficient, costly, and premature, as the tool may not be suitable or effective for the intended purpose, or may be replaced by another tool later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheAgile Testing Quadrantsframework categorizes tests based on theirpurpose and audience:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a structured review process, it is essential to plan reviews carefully and manage them effectively. Reviewing large work products in one go is not recommended because it can lead to oversight of issues due to fatigue or information overload. It is more efficient to break down large work products into smaller, manageable parts and review them incrementally. This ensures a thorough and effective review process. Additionally, other practices such as planning for the review, starting discussions during review initiation, and creating defect reports for found issues are standard recommendations for an effective review process​​.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

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

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

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

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

Acceptance criteria8states thatthe system should charge the user on the first business day of the following month. However, thetest cycle only verified monthly payments for over a year, without confirming whether payments were processedspecifically on the first business day.

(B) is incorrectbecause the test validatedmonthly and annual payment options.

(C) is incorrectbecause not all criteria were fully validated.

(D) is incorrectbecause OTP verification (6) was tested as part of registration.

Ensuringtimely execution of payments(Criteria 8) requires additional validation.

The "absence-of-defects fallacy" in software development refers to the mistaken belief that if a software system has been thoroughly tested and all requirements have been met without any defects, it guarantees the success of the system. However, this is not necessarily true. Even if no defects are found, the system might still fail to meet the user's needs or business objectives. This fallacy highlights the importance of validation in addition to verification to ensure that the system fulfills the intended use and requirements​​.

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

The other options are incorrect because:

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

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

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

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

Both black-box test techniques and experience-based test techniques can be applied to functional and non-functional testing. Functional testing focuses on what the system does, while non-functional testing examines how the system performs. These techniques provide flexible and effective methods for assessing various aspects of the system.

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

Type of customer

Amount of sale

Bonus percentage

Basic

G1

3%

Basic

G2

5%

Basic

G3

7%

Premium

G1

5%

Premium

G2

7%

Premium

G3

10%

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

Retrospectives provide value by fostering improvement and collaboration. The correct mapping is:

A2: Team bonding occurs when teams openly discuss issues.

B1: Test effectiveness increases when process improvements are implemented.

C4: Test basis improves by addressing requirement deficiencies.

D3: Cooperation improves through regular review of collaboration.

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

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

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

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

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

In the ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, it is stated that a key objective of testing is to verify that the test object meets regulatory requirements. This is crucial as compliance with regulatory standards ensures that the software adheres to necessary laws, guidelines, and safety standards which are often mandatory in various industries such as healthcare, finance, and aviation. Ensuring regulatory compliance helps prevent legal issues and promotes user safety and trust.

Exercising at least one of the decision outcomes for all decisions within the code, ensures achieving full branch coverage, which is a test coverage criterion that requires that all branches in the control flow of the code are executed at least once by the testcases. A branch is a basic block of code that has a single entry point and a single exit point, and a decision is a point in the code where the control flow can take more than one direction, such as an if-then-else statement, a switch-case statement, a loop statement, etc. The decision outcomes are the possible paths that can be taken from a decision, such as the then branch or the else branch, the case branch or the default branch, the loop body or the loop exit, etc. The other statements are false, because:

The minimum number of test cases needed to achieve full branch coverage, is usually higher than that needed to achieve full statement coverage, which is a test coverage criterion that requires that all executable statements in the code are executed at least once by the test cases. This is because branch coverage is a stronger criterion than statement coverage, as it implies statement coverage, but not vice versa. For example, a single test case can achieve full statement coverage for an if-then-else statement, but two test cases are needed to achieve full branch coverage, as both the then branch and the else branch need to be exercised.

If full branch coverage has been achieved, then all unconditional branches within the code have not necessarily been exercised, as unconditional branches are branches that do not depend on any decision, and are always executed, such as a goto statement, a break statement, a return statement, etc. Unconditional branches are not part of the branch coverage criterion, as they do not represent different paths in the control flow of the code. However, they are part of the statement coverage criterion, as they are executable statements in the code.

If full branch coverage has been achieved, then all combinations of conditions in a decision table have not necessarily been exercised, as a decision table is a test design technique that represents the logical relationships between multiple conditions and their corresponding actions, in a tabular format. A decision table can have more combinations of conditions than the number of decision outcomes in the code, as each condition can have two or more possible values, such as true or false, yes or no, etc. For example, a decision table with four conditions can have 16 combinations of conditions, but the corresponding code may have only two decision outcomes, such as pass or fail. To exercise all combinations of conditions in a decision table, a stronger test coverage criterion is needed, such as condition combination coverage, which requires that all possible combinations of condition outcomes in the code are executed at least once by the test cases. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.3.1, Test Coverage Criteria Based on the Structure of the Software

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Branch Coverage, Statement Coverage, Branch, Decision, Decision Outcome, Unconditional Branch, Decision Table, Condition Combination Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

≤7 (Too cold → W)

[8-21] (Standstill → X)

[22-29] (Ideal → Y)

≥30 (Too hot → Z)

Atwo-point BVAmeans testing both thelower and upper boundary valuesof each partition.

The correct selection{7,8,21,22,29,30}includes:

7 → Boundary of Too Cold (W)

8 → Lower boundary of Standstill (X)

21 → Upper boundary of Standstill (X)

22 → Lower boundary of Ideal (Y)

29 → Upper boundary of Ideal (Y)

30 → Lower boundary of Too Hot (Z)

This ensures maximum boundary coverage.

In the given state transition diagram, we need to identify the minimum number of test cases required to cover every unique sequence of exactly 4 states/3 transitions starting and ending in the "Inactive" state.

The states are:

Inactive

Active

Alert Mode

Alarm bell rings

Inactive -> Active -> Inactive -> Active -> Inactive

Sequence: Press Button, Enter PIN, Press Button, Enter PIN

Inactive -> Active -> Alert Mode -> Inactive

Sequence: Press Button, Sensor Activated, Enter PIN

Inactive -> Active -> Alert Mode -> Alarm bell rings -> Inactive

Sequence: Press Button, Sensor Activated, Timeout expired, Press Button

Test Case Analysis:These sequences cover every unique combination of exactly 4 states and 3 transitions starting and ending in the "Inactive" state.