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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

References:

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

The tests at the bottom layer of the test pyramid run faster than the tests at the top layer of the pyramid because they are more focused, isolated, and atomic. They usually test individual units or components of the software system, such as classes, methods, or functions. They are also easier to maintain and execute, as they have fewer dependencies and interactions with other parts of the system. The tests at the top layer of the test pyramid, on the other hand, are slower because they cover larger pieces of functionalities, such as user interfaces, workflows, or end-to-end scenarios. They also have more dependencies and interactions with other systems, such as databases, networks, or external services. They are more complex and costly to maintain and execute, as they require more setup and teardown procedures, test data, and test environments. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.2.1, Test Pyramid1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test Pyramid2

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

(x \leq -100)

(-100 < x < 100)

(100 \leq x < 1000)

(x \geq 1000)

Option D provides a value from each of these partitions:

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

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

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

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

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

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 documents available at ISTQB and ASTQB.

1: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 38

2: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 39

: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 40

The fact that defects are usually not evenly distributed among the various modules that make up a software application, but rather their distribution tend to reflect the Pareto principle, is expressed by the testing principle referred to as ‘Defects cluster together’. This principle states that a small number of modules contain most of the defects detected, or that a small number of causes are responsible for most of the defects. This principle can be used to guide the test analysis and design activities, by prioritizing the testing of the most critical or risky modules, or by applying more rigorous test techniques to them. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.

References: ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.01, Section 1.2.1, page 11; ISTQB® Glossary v4.02, page 16.

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

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

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

References:

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

In the V-model project described in the question, the tester can identify the following based on the provided information:

Expected result (II): The requirements specification clearly states that the app should only ask for access permissions to the camera and photos stored on the device during and after installation. This expected behavior is defined by the requirements.

Actual result (III): The tester observes that the app also requests access to all contacts on the device, which deviates from the expected result. This actual observation can be recorded accurately.

Given these details, the tester can specify the expected result (II) and the actual result (III) in the defect report. However, without more information, the tester cannot determine the test environment (I), the test level (IV), or the root cause (V).

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.5 on Defect Reporting

Typical contents of a defect report as mentioned in the syllabus include the expected result and the actual result observed during testing​​.

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, System Testing, Functional Testing, Acceptance Testing, Story Testing, Scenario Testing, Performance Testing, Security Testing, Reliability Testing, Compatibility Testing

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

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

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

In exploratory testing, testers usually do not produce scripted tests and establish bidirectional traceability between these tests and the items of the test basis, but rather produce unscripted tests and adapt them based on the feedback and the findings of the testing process. Scripted tests are tests that are designed 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

This answer is correct because in Agile software development, work product documentation, such as user stories, acceptance criteria, or test cases, tends to be lightweight and concise, as the focus is on working software and frequent communication rather than comprehensive documentation. Manual tests tend to be often unscripted, as they are often produced using experience-based test techniques, such as error guessing or exploratory testing, which rely on the tester’s skills, knowledge, and creativity to find defects and provide feedback. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.2, Section 3.2.1.2

The question is about marking the correct sentences among the given statements related to defects, failures, and mistakes. According to the ISTQB glossary, the definitions of these terms are1:

Defect: A flaw in a component or system that can cause the component or system to fail to perform its required function, e.g. an incorrect statement or data definition. A defect, if encountered during execution, may cause a failure of the component or system.

Failure: An event in which a component or system does not perform a required function within specified limits.

Mistake: A human action that produces an incorrect result.

Therefore, out of the five given statements, only two are correct, namely:

A human mistake may produce a defect: This is true, as a mistake is a source or cause of a defect, e.g. a programmer may make a mistake in writing a code statement, which results in a defect in the software component.

When a defect exists in a system it may result in a failure: This is true, as a defect is a potential or actual cause of a failure, e.g. a defect in the software component may cause the system to fail to perform a required function when the defect is encountered during execution.

The other three statements are incorrect, namely:

Defects are a result of environmental conditions and are also referred to as “Failures”: This is false, as defects are not a result of environmental conditions, but of mistakes or other factors, and defects are not the same as failures, but rather the causes of failures.

A system will totally fail to operate correctly when a failure exists in it: This is false, as a system may not necessarily fail completely or stop operating when a failure occurs, but may continue to operate with reduced functionality or performance, or with incorrect results.

Defects occur only as a result of technology changes: This is false, as defects can occur due to various reasons, not only technology changes, such as human mistakes, design flaws, requirement changes, hardware failures, etc.

References:

1: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms 4.0, 2023, available at ISTQB) and ASTQB).

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.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 5.1.6, page 49: Test Implementation

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 the interactions and interfaces between components or subsystems, and to detect any defects or inconsistencies that may arise from the integration of different parts of the software or system. Integration testing is essential for ensuring the functionality, performance, and compatibility of the software or system as a whole, and for identifying 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 necessarily the case, as there may be other factors that affect the product quality, such as the quality of the requirements, design, code, and other test levels, the effectiveness and efficiency of the test techniques and tools, the competence and experience of the developers and testers, the availability and adequacy of the resources and environment, the management and communication of the project, and the expectations and satisfaction of the customers and users. Therefore, while integration testing is a very important test level that should not be skipped, it is not the only test level that matters, and skipping 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.

Independence in testing provides several benefits. Firstly, it helps remove the biases that might be introduced by the person who developed the code or created the tests (ii). This is because an independent tester can evaluate the software without being influenced by their prior work. Secondly, different people bring different perspectives and assumptions to the testing process, which can help uncover different types of weaknesses (iv).

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 1.5.3 on the benefits of independence in testing, which emphasizes the reduction of bias and the introduction of diverse viewpoints​​.

 The V-model is a software development life cycle model that defines four test levels that correspond to four development phases: component (unit) testing with component design, integration testing with architectural design, system testing with system requirements, and acceptance testing with user requirements. The V-model emphasizes the importance of verifying and validating each phase of development with a corresponding level of testing, and ensuring that the test objectives, test basis, and test artifacts are aligned and consistent across the test levels. Therefore, an organization that wants to follow the V-model cannot do away with integration testing, as it would break the symmetry and completeness of the V-model, and compromise the quality and reliability of the software or system under test. Integration testing is a test level that aims to test the interactions and interfaces between components or subsystems, and to detect any defects or inconsistencies that may arise from the integration of different parts of the software or system. Integration testing is essential for ensuring the functionality, performance, and compatibility of the software or system as a whole, and for identifying 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 necessarily the case, as there may be other factors that affect the product quality, such as the quality of the requirements, design, code, and other test levels, the effectiveness and efficiency of the test techniques and tools, the competence and experience of the developers and testers, the availability and adequacy of the resources and environment, the management and communication of the project, and the expectations and satisfaction of the customers and users. Therefore, while integration testing is a very important test level that should not be skipped, it is not the only test level that matters, and skipping 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.

The testing quadrants, as defined in the context of agile testing, help categorize different types of tests based on their goals and who they serve.

Q1: Technology-facing tests that support the team (e.g., unit tests).

Q2: Business-facing tests that support the team (e.g., automated acceptance tests, BDD, ATDD).

Q3: Business-facing tests that critique the product (e.g., exploratory testing).

Q4: Technology-facing tests that critique the product (e.g., performance and load tests).

Option B correctly places automated acceptance tests from BDD and ATDD in quadrant Q2.

Test planning is a critical phase in the software testing life cycle where the schedule for each testing activity and test milestones for a test project are determined. This involves using activity estimates, available resources, and other constraints to outline a comprehensive plan for the entire testing process. The main objective of test planning is to ensure that all testing activities are well-coordinated and that the testing process is efficient and effective. This phase sets the foundation for subsequent phases such as test analysis, test design, and test execution by providing a clear roadmap and allocation of resources.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 5.1, page 47: Test Planning

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

The ISTQB fundamental test process consists of five main phases, as described in the ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 4.0, 2018, Section 2.2, page 15:

Test planning and control: This phase involves defining the test objectives, scope, strategy, resources, schedule, risks, and metrics, as well as monitoring and controlling the test activities and results throughout the test process.

Test analysis and design: This phase involves analyzing the test basis (such as requirements, specifications, or user stories) to identify test conditions (such as features, functions, or scenarios) that need to be tested, and designing test cases and test procedures (such as inputs, expected outcomes, and execution steps) to cover the test conditions. This phase also involves evaluating the testability of the test basis and the test items (such as software or system components), and selecting and implementing test techniques (such as equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, or state transition testing) to achieve the test objectives and optimize the test coverage and efficiency.

Test implementation and execution: This phase involves preparing the test environment (such as hardware, software, data, or tools) and testware (such as test cases, test procedures, test data, or test scripts) for test execution, and executing the test procedures or scripts according to the test plan and schedule. This phase also involves logging the outcome of test execution, comparing the actual results with the expected results, and reporting any discrepancies as incidents (such as defects, errors, or failures).

Evaluating exit criteria and reporting: This phase involves checking if the planned test activities have been completed and the exit criteria (such as quality, coverage, or risk levels) have been met, and reporting the test results and outcomes to the stakeholders. This phase also involves making recommendations for the release or acceptance decision based on the test results and outcomes, and identifying any residual risks (such as known defects or untested areas) that need to be addressed or mitigated.

Test closure activities: This phase involves finalizing and archiving the testware and test environment for future reuse, and evaluating the test process and the test project against the test objectives and the test plan. This phase also involves identifying any lessons learned and best practices, and communicating the findings and suggestions for improvement to the relevant parties.

References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 4.0, 2018, Section 2.2, page 15; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, pages 37-38; ISTQB CTFL 4.0 - Sample Exam - Answers, Version 1.1, 2023, Question 88, page 32.

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

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

To determine the number of partitions using one-dimensional equivalence partitioning, we need to consider each aspect of the ID requirement individually.

Length of the ID:

Valid partitions: 5 to 10 characters (1 partition)

Invalid partitions: Less than 5 characters, more than 10 characters (2 partitions)

Type of characters:

Valid partitions: Alphanumeric characters (1 partition)

Invalid partitions: Non-alphanumeric characters (1 partition)

Type of first character:

Valid partitions: First character is a letter (1 partition)

Invalid partitions: First character is not a letter (1 partition)

Adding these together, we have a total of 1 (valid length) + 2 (invalid lengths) + 1 (valid type) + 1 (invalid type) + 1 (valid first character) + 1 (invalid first character) = 7 partitions.

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

In an agile software development environment with distributed teams, effective communication is crucial. Given the distributed nature and the time zone differences, asynchronous communication methods such as emails are more practical and effective. They ensure that information can be shared and accessed by team members and stakeholders at their convenience, regardless of time zone differences. Regular email updates also provide a documented trail of communication, which can be reviewed and referred back to as needed. Formal face-to-face meetings can be challenging to coordinate across time zones and are not as flexible as email communications​​.

When deciding on the order of test execution based on priorities and dependencies, the correct sequence should consider both the priority levels and any dependencies between test cases. Here’s the analysis:

Test B has the highest priority (1) and depends on Test D.

Test D should be executed before Test B.

Test C has a medium priority (2) and depends on Test A.

Test A can be executed at any time since it has no dependencies.

Considering these dependencies and priorities, Test D should be executed first, followed by Test B. After that, Test A and finally Test C. Therefore, the correct sequence is D-B-A-C​​.

The tool described in the question supports the automated creation and installation of builds and the execution of various types of automated tests. This aligns with the practices and tools typically found in DevOps environments, which aim to integrate and automate the processes between software development and IT teams. DevOps tools facilitate continuous integration (CI) and continuous delivery (CD), enabling automated building, testing, and deployment of applications. Therefore, the correct answer is that this is an example of DevOps related tools​​.

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.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 3.2.3 on Static Analysis and its applications

The syllabus explains that static analysis tools are used to enforce coding standards and improve code quality by detecting issues early in the development process​​.

CTFL NEW

Error guessing is a testing technique where experienced testers anticipate potential defects based on their knowledge of the application and past experiences. Fault attacks, which involve focusing on areas where defects are likely to occur based on previous failures, are a practical implementation of error guessing.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 4.4.1 on error guessing and fault attacks, explaining how testers use their experience to anticipate and target likely defects​​.

DevOps practices emphasize the importance of testing non-functional characteristics such as performance, security, and reliability. This focus ensures that the system not only meets functional requirements but also performs well under various conditions and is secure. DevOps promotes a continuous testing approach, which includes both functional and non-functional testing integrated into the development and deployment pipelines.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 2.1.4 on DevOps and testing, which highlights the role of DevOps in emphasizing non-functional characteristics​​.

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

References:

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

The whole team approach in testing means that the responsibility for testing is shared among all members of the team, not just the testers. This concept is emphasized in agile methodologies where collaboration and collective ownership of quality are key principles. Each team member, including developers, business analysts, and testers, contributes to the testing process, ensuring that quality is built into the product from the beginning.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 1.5.2 on the "whole team approach" which describes the collective responsibility of the team for testing​​.

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.

A test-first approach involves writing tests before writing the code. In this approach, initially, the tests fail because the corresponding functionality is not yet implemented. Afterward, the code is written or modified to make the tests pass. This cycle is repeated iteratively. This method ensures that the code is developed based on predefined tests and helps in identifying issues early in the development process​​.

White-box testing, also known as structural testing, involves testing the internal structures or workings of an application, as opposed to its functionality (which is tested by black-box testing). The correct statement about white-box testing is that it helps find defects by measuring aspects such as statement coverage.

Statement Coverage: White-box testing techniques like statement coverage measure whether each statement in the code has been executed at least once. This helps ensure that all parts of the code are tested and can reveal defects in areas that might not be reached by black-box testing alone​​.

Other statements are less accurate in the context of white-box testing:

Specifications being vague: White-box testing is code-focused, not requirement-focused. If specifications are vague, it affects both white-box and black-box testing. The main advantage of white-box testing is that it allows testers to create tests based on the code's structure and logic​​.

Requirements-based coverage: This is typically associated with black-box testing, which derives tests from specifications and requirements. White-box testing, on the other hand, derives tests from the code itself​​.

Focus on defects rather than failures: Both white-box and black-box testing aim to identify defects, but white-box testing does this through code coverage and examining the code paths directly. It does not focus exclusively on defects rather than failures; it is just another method to identify potential issues​​.

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

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

References:

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

Exploratory testing is an experience-based testing technique where test design and test execution occur simultaneously. It is characterized by the tester actively exploring the application, using their intuition and experience to uncover defects. Exploratory testing sessions are often guided by test charters, which are brief documents outlining the test objectives, scope, and areas to be explored during the session.

These test charters provide a flexible framework that directs the tester's exploration without being overly prescriptive, allowing testers to adapt and investigate new areas as they uncover issues. This approach is particularly useful in dynamic and complex systems where predefined test cases might not cover all scenarios.

References:

The official ISTQB® CTFL syllabus explains the structure and benefits of exploratory testing, highlighting how test charters guide the testing process while allowing for flexibility and adaptability in identifying defects​​.

This answer is correct because code-related white-box test techniques are test design techniques that use the structure of the code to derive test cases. They provide an objective measure of coverage, such as statement coverage, branch coverage, or path coverage, which indicate how much of the code has been exercised by the test cases. Code-related white-box test techniques can be used to complement black-box test techniques, which are test design techniques that use the functional or non-functional requirements of the system or component to derive test cases. By combining both types of techniques, testers can increase their confidence in the code and find more defects. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.2

Good testing practices that apply to all software development lifecycles include having specific test objectives for each test level that align with the phase of the software development lifecycle and the type of activities being addressed. This approach ensures that testing activities are relevant and appropriate for the specific stage of development, enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the testing process.

References:

ISTQB® CTFL Syllabus 4.0, Chapter 2.1.2, page 24: Software Development Lifecycle and Good Testing Practices​

The business-facing quadrant that supports the team is focused on tests that validate the system against user stories. These tests ensure that the system delivers the value and functionality described by the user stories, which are central to agile methodologies.

References:

ISTQB CTFL Syllabus V4.0, Section 5.1.7 on the testing quadrants, particularly the business-facing tests that support the team and are based on user stories​​.

This answer is correct because test implementation is the activity where test work products, such as test cases, test data, test scripts, test harnesses, test stubs, or virtual services, are created and verified. Test implementation also involves setting up the test environment and preparing the test execution schedule. A virtual service emulating a real third-party service and the automated test scripts that interact with that service are examples of test work products that are typically created during test implementation. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.2.2.3