Free ISTQB ISTQB-CTFL Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 11

The key difference between a peer review of code and static analysis of code using a tool lies in their approaches and scope. A peer review is a manual inspection of the code by peers or colleagues, focusing not only on the technical aspects of the code but also on other elements such as design, compliance with standards, and maintainability. Peer reviews can identify defects, suggest improvements, and ensure that the code adheres to best practices and team standards.

On the other hand, static analysis is an automated process performed by tools designed to analyze the code without executing it. These tools can detect potential issues such as syntax errors, vulnerabilities, and code smells based on predefined rules and patterns. While static analysis is technically focused, it lacks the broader perspective that human reviewers can provide, such as evaluating the code's maintainability or adherence to project-specific standards. Therefore, static analysis targets the code technically, whereas peer review encompasses a wider range of aspects, making option B the correct answer.

In Agile teams, close collaboration among testers and other team members can lead to organizational risks such as: ii. Close interaction with developers causes a loss of the appropriate tester mindset. iv. Testers, once they have acquired technical development or business skills, leave the testing team.

These risks highlight the potential issues of diminished testing perspective and team turnover when testers integrate closely with developers and other roles​​.

The following statements about reviews are true:

I) In walkthroughs the review meeting is typically led by the author. A walkthrough is a type of review that has a predefined objective and agenda but no formal process or roles. A walkthrough is typically led by the author of the work product under review, who guides the participants through a scenario and solicits feedback.

IV) Management rarely participates in technical review meetings. A technical review is a type of review that has a predefined objective and agenda but no formal process or roles. A technical review is typically performed by peers with technical expertise in order to evaluate technical aspects of a work product. Management rarely participates in technical review meetings, as they may not have sufficient technical knowledge or skills to contribute effectively. The following statements about reviews are false:

II) Inspection is characterized by an open-ended review meeting. An inspection is a type of review that follows a defined process with formal entry and exit criteria and roles and responsibilities for participants. An inspection is characterized by a structured review meeting with a fixed duration and agenda.

III) Preparation before the review meeting is part of informal reviews. Preparation before the review meeting is part of formal reviews, such as inspections or technical reviews. Preparation involves checking

The statement "Traceability may make it harder to understand the impact of changes" is incorrect. Traceability in testing actually facilitates understanding the impact of changes by linking test cases to requirements. This linkage helps ensure that any changes in the requirements are adequately reflected and verified in the test cases, thus supporting effective management of changes and maintaining the integrity of the system or product being developed​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​​ (ISTQB Main Web)​.

Finding all defects in a product and ensuring it is defect-free is not a valid objective of testing. Testing aims to find as many defects as possible, build confidence in the quality of the product, and evaluate work products. However, it is unrealistic to expect testing to find all defects, and declaring a product completely defect-free is impractical.

Static analysis is the process of examining the work products of a software development or testing activity without executing them. Static analysis can be applied to various types of work products, such as requirements, design, code, test cases, etc. However, test plans are not suitable for static analysis, because they are high-level documents that describe the test objectives, scope, strategy, resources, schedule, and risks of a testing project. Test plans are not executable or formalized in a way that static analysis tools can analyze them. Therefore, option A is the correct answer.

In Agile development, an informal review, often referred to as a "buddy check," is a common review type. Informal reviews are unstructured and involve a pair of colleagues reviewing each other’s work to identify defects early and provide immediate feedback. This type of review is less formal than inspections or walkthroughs and is particularly suitable for Agile environments where rapid feedback and flexibility are essential.

To achieve 100% branch coverage of the process flow, we need to test both the true and false outcomes of the condition (User presses Cancel). Branch coverage is a type of structural testing that measures how many decision outcomes in a program have been executed by a test suite. Branch coverage can be used to assess the adequacy or completeness of a test suite.

To test the true outcome of the condition, we need a test case that simulates the user pressing Cancel after booking a bill. This test case will exit the loop and end the process flow.

To test the false outcome of the condition, we need a test case that simulates the user not pressing Cancel after booking a bill. This test case will repeat the loop and book another bill.

Therefore, we need at least two test cases to achieve 100% branch coverage of the process flow. One test case for each possible outcome of the condition.

Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 40-41.