Free iSQI CTFL_Syll_4.0 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

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.

Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) are both essential aspects of a comprehensive quality management system but they serve different purposes:

Quality Assurance (QA): QA is a process-oriented approach that focuses on preventing defects by improving the processes used to develop and test products. It involves setting up processes, methodologies, and standards to ensure that the product meets quality requirements​​.

Quality Control (QC): QC is a product-oriented approach that focuses on identifying defects in the final products. It involves activities such as inspection, testing, and review to ensure that the product meets the specified requirements and standards​​.

Thus, the main difference is that QA is process-oriented and preventive, while QC is product-oriented and corrective.

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.

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​​.

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

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.

 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.

Maintenance testing is carried outwhenever changes are made to an existing system, including enhancements, defect fixes, and system migrations (C). It is not limited to adaptive maintenance (A) and is needed even when no defects are reported (B). Test cases are essential to validate fixes and prevent regressions (D).

ATDD stands for Acceptance Test-Driven Development, which is a collaborative approach to software development and testing, in which the acceptance criteria of a user story are defined and automated as executable tests before the implementation of the software system. ATDD tests are usually written in a Given-When-Then format, which describes the preconditions, the actions, and the expected outcomes of a test scenario. ATDD tests are intended to verify that the software system meets the expectations and the needs of the users and the stakeholders, as well as to provide feedback and guidance for the developers and the testers. Based on the given information, the ATDD test that is most likely to be written first is the one that corresponds to option B, which is:

Given the logged-in user is on the Change Password page When the user enters the correct current password, enters a valid new password (different from the last 5 passwords), and presses the Change Password button Then the user receives an email confirming that the password has been successfully changed

This ATDD test is most likely to be written first, because it covers the main functionality and the happy path of the user story, as well as the most important acceptance criterion [a]. It also verifies that the user can change the password with a valid new password that meets the criteria related to the length, the type of characters, and the history of the passwords, as specified in the acceptance criterion [c]. The other options are not likely to be written first, because they either cover less critical or less frequent scenarios, such as entering a wrong current password [d] or an invalid new password [e], or they are not related to the user story or the acceptance criteria at all, such as submitting a purchase order [d]. 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 Lifecycles1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Acceptance Test-Driven Development, User Story, Acceptance Criterion, Given-When-Then2

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.