Free ISTQB CTAL-TTA Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 4

Analysis:

Mobile emulator tools are used to mimic the environment of a mobile device for testing purposes. They have specific characteristics and limitations that distinguish them from physical devices and other types of testing tools.

Correct Statement:

A. A mobile emulator models the mobile platform's runtime environment but not the hardware. The tested application differs from the application that will be distributed:

This statement accurately describes the functionality of mobile emulators. Emulators simulate the software environment of a mobile device, allowing applications to be tested in a controlled, virtual environment. However, because they do not model the actual hardware, the behavior of the application might differ when run on a real device. This distinction is crucial for understanding the limitations of using emulators for testing.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

B. A mobile emulator models the hardware and utilizes the same runtime environment as the physical hardware. The tested application could also be used by the real device:

This describes a mobile simulator or real device testing rather than an emulator. Emulators typically do not model hardware accurately.

C. Unlike a mobile simulator tool, an emulator does not allow the setting of various usage parameters:

This is incorrect as emulators often allow setting various parameters to simulate different conditions.

D. A mobile emulator tests the performance of a mobile device by subjecting it to high application loads:

This describes performance testing tools rather than emulators. Emulators are generally not used for performance testing due to their inability to accurately model hardware behavior.

References:

The ISTQB CTAL-TTA syllabus and standard practices in mobile testing tools highlight the differences between emulators, simulators, and physical devices, emphasizing the limitations and use cases for each.

Sources:

ISTQB-CTAL-TTA Syllabus

General knowledge on mobile testing tools and methodologies.

Analysis:

Fault injection tools are used to introduce faults into a system to test its robustness and error-handling capabilities.

B. They deliberately introduce incorrect inputs to a system to ensure it can withstand and recover from error conditions:

This statement correctly describes the purpose of fault injection tools, which is to introduce faults or errors to evaluate how well the system can handle and recover from these conditions.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

A. They modify the code under test in order to check the coverage achieved by specified tests:

This describes code coverage tools, not fault injection tools.

C. They inject defects into the SUT to test the error handling capabilities of test automation software:

Fault injection tools test the system under test (SUT) itself, not the test automation software.

D. They can detect memory leaks and wild pointers when a component is executing:

This describes dynamic analysis tools, not fault injection tools.

References:

The ISTQB CTAL-TTA syllabus covers the use of fault injection tools and their role in testing the robustness of systems.

Sources:

ISTQB-CTAL-TTA Syllabus

General knowledge on fault injection tools.

In software testing, especially within contexts like nuclear power plants, achieving a "highly recommended" level of coverage often requires strategic test case selection to verify all logical conditions are accurately assessed. For the condition "If ((A > B) or (C > D)) and (E = F) then print A", the critical tests involve evaluating the boolean logic.

Test Case Analysis: Test Set 1 is selected because it should ideally include scenarios where:

Both conditions (A > B) and (C > D) are true, and (E = F) is true to ensure the print statement executes.

One of the conditions (A > B) or (C > D) is false while the other is true, combined with (E = F) being true, to test the OR logic.

Both conditions (A > B) and (C > D) are false with (E = F) being true, which should not trigger the print statement, testing the AND logic.

Condition where (E != F), irrespective of other conditions, to confirm that the print statement does not execute.

According to the INVEST criteria, the Testable and Small criteria have not been satisfied for the user story provided. Option B is correct.

INVEST Criteria: The INVEST model stipulates that user stories should be Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, and Testable.

Analysis of the User Story: The scope of the user story and its acceptance criteria suggests it is too broad (thus not 'Small') and the details provided, especially regarding response times and system notifications, imply potential challenges in effectively testing the story (thus possibly not 'Testable') without further refinement or breaking down the story into smaller, more manageable pieces.

The size and complexity of the requirements indicate that the story might be better classified as an epic, needing decomposition into smaller, more specific user stories that can be more feasibly addressed within agile iterations .

In the context of an internet banking project where reliability and maintainability are emphasized, a key factor for maintainability is the modularity of the system. Implementing the user interface independently from other software modules (answer B) can significantly enhance maintainability. This is because it allows changes to be made to the user interface without impacting the underlying business logic or data access layers, making the system more adaptable to change. This kind of separation of concerns is a recognized best practice in software design for maintainability. The other options (A, C, and D) relate more to reliability and security aspects than to maintainability.

In the pseudo-code provided, we need to identify data flow anomalies, which typically occur when variables are used improperly in terms of their definition, usage, or re-definition.

Analyzing the pseudo-code step by step:

Lines 1-4 initialize variables LOYALTY_RATING, COUNT_CRUISES, CRUISE_LENGTH, and CRUISE_ACCOM_TYPE to 0.

Lines 6-7 read the customer's cruise history.

Line 8 begins a WHILE loop that continues until COUNT_CRUISES is -1.

Lines 9-10 read the next cruise.

Lines 11-19 check the CRUISE_ACCOM_TYPE and update CRUISE_CREDITS accordingly.

Line 20 decrements COUNT_CRUISES.

Line 21 ends the WHILE loop.

Line 22 calculates LOYALTY_RATING by dividing CRUISE_CREDITS by COUNT_CRUISES.

Lines 23-24 output the CRUISE_CREDITS.

Line 25 ends the program.

Data Flow Anomalies:

Line 14: CRUISE_CREDITS is re-defined before being used.

The initial problem here is that CRUISE_CREDITS should be assigned a value before it is incremented in lines 12, 15, and 17. The code does not show any prior definition (initialization) for CRUISE_CREDITS before these increments.

Line 27: LOYALTY_RATING is defined but not subsequently used.

After LOYALTY_RATING is calculated in line 22, it is not used again. This means the calculated value serves no purpose in the program as it stands.

By considering the above points, we can confirm that the correct option is C:

Line 14: CRUISE_CREDITS is re-defined before being used (it should have been initialized before the WHILE loop or just before its first usage inside the loop).

Line 27 (Line 22 in provided pseudo-code): LOYALTY_RATING is defined (calculated) but not subsequently used.

This matches the reference provided in the ISTQB sample exam answers​​, confirming that C is the correct answer.

References:

ISTQB CTAL-TTA Sample Exam Questions​​

ISTQB Exam Structures and Rules​​

ISTQB CTAL-TTA Sample Exam Answers​​

ISTQB-CTAL-TTA Syllabus​​

ISTQB Exam Structure Tables​

The code provided contains a potential endless loop. The loop is conditioned on the variable 'E' being less than 1 (IF E < 1), but within the loop, there is no operation that modifies the value of 'E'. Therefore, once the loop is entered, if the condition A > B holds true, the value of 'E' remains unchanged, leading to an endless loop situation. The decrement of 'A' in line 15 does not guarantee an exit condition for the loop, as it does not affect the value of 'E'. This is a control flow defect that could cause the program to hang or crash.

To achieve multiple condition coverage with the least number of tests, the selected test data set must cover all possible combinations of the conditions (A > B) or (C > D) and (E = F). Set 2, where each condition has been tested in both true and false states across the minimal test set, is the most efficient way to ensure coverage. It triggers different paths in the code with minimal redundancy, ensuring that each unique path is verified.

100% statement coverage means that every line of code is executed at least once during testing. Based on the provided pseudo-code and the test cases given:

Test 1 executes the MIN = B statement when A and B are equal.

Test 2 executes the MIN = A statement and skips the inner IF since B is not equal to 2*A.

All statements within the code have been executed by these two tests, hence no additional test cases are needed to achieve 100% statement coverage.

To achieve decision coverage, each branch of the decision structure in the code must be executed at least once. The code snippet has three branches:

withdrawal-amount <= amount-on-deposit

withdrawal-amount <= $100 AND preferred-customer = true

Default case where the transaction is not authorized

Data set #1 triggers the second branch because the withdrawal amount is not less than the amount on deposit, but it is less than $100, and the user is a preferred customer.

Data set #2 triggers the first branch where the withdrawal amount is equal to the amount on deposit.

Data set #3 tests the condition where the withdrawal amount is less than the deposit amount, but the user is not a preferred customer, triggering the default case.

All decision branches are covered by these test cases, achieving 100% decision coverage.