Free ISTQB ISTQB-CTFL Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 8

Equivalence classes partitioning is a technique that divides the input data and output results of a software component into partitions of equivalent data. Each partition should contain data that is treated in the same way by the component. Equivalence classes partitioning can be used to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. For the ZIP code field, there are four equivalence classes based on the given rules:

Valid ZIP code format and valid ZIP code value (e.g., 12345)

Valid ZIP code format and invalid ZIP code value (e.g., 99999)

Invalid ZIP code format and valid ZIP code value (e.g., 1234)

Invalid ZIP code format and invalid ZIP code value (e.g., ABCDE) Therefore, four test cases are required to test this field, one for each equivalence class. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 37-38.

A project risk relates to potential issues that could affect the overall success of the project. Among the options provided, the risk that "Team members' skills may not be sufficient for the assigned work" is clearly a project risk because it pertains to the potential failure of the project due to inadequate skillsets among the team. This risk affects the entire project's ability to meet its objectives.

Test automation provides numerous benefits to software testing, and one of the key advantages is the reduction of repetitive manual work. This benefit is explicitly covered in the ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus (v4.0).

Test automation allows testers to automate repetitive tasks such as regression testing, freeing up their time to focus on more complex and exploratory testing. This leads to improved efficiency and helps in avoiding human errors associated with repetitive tasks.

Option A: "More subjective assessment" contradicts the benefit of automation as it focuses on objectivity.

Option C: "Availability of the test automation tool vendor" is not a direct benefit of test automation, although vendor support can be valuable.

Option D: "Negligible effort to maintain the test assets" is misleading as maintaining automated tests often requires effort and attention to changes in the system under test.

Therefore, the correct answer is B​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​​ (ISTQB)​.

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.

Entry and exit criteria are used to determine when to start and stop testing, respectively.

Entry Criteria:

These are conditions that should be met before testing begins.

Examples:

2. The test automation tool has been installed and properly configured

4. The performance test environment has been set-up and is available

5. The user stories have proper acceptance criteria defined

Exit Criteria:

These are conditions that should be met before testing concludes.

Examples:

1. A defined level of code coverage has been achieved

3. The number of unresolved defects is within the predefined limit

6. The testing budge​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​ spent and the project sponsor bears the risk of not testing any further

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, these criteria help in effectively managing the testing process【6†source】.

Risk level is determined by the combination of two factors: the likelihood of an event occurring and the impact or harm that could result from that event. This approach allows risks to be prioritized based on their potential effect on the project or system. The likelihood represents the probability of the risk event occurring, while the impact represents the severity of the consequences if the event does happen. This concept is fundamental in risk-based testing and helps guide decision-making during the testing process.

The Waterfall model exemplifies a software development model that does not support the principle of early testing. In the Waterfall model, each phase must be completed before the next begins, which delays testing until after the completion of the earlier phases like requirements gathering and design. This can often result in finding defects later in the development cycle, making them more expensive and time-consuming to fix​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​.

Test Management tools are designed to support the planning, execution, and monitoring of the testing process. They provide features for managing test cases, test runs, tracking defects, and reporting on testing activities. However, the statement in option C describes Test Management tools as monitoring and reporting on the system's behavior during testing activities, which is not accurate. Test Management tools focus on the testing process itself rather than on the behavior of the system under test.

Test data preparation tools (A) indeed create and manage test data for use during test execution.

Test execution tools (B) automate the execution of test cases and the comparison of actual outcomes against expected results.

Test comparators (D) are tools that compare actual outcomes with expected outcomes, highlighting discrepancies.

Therefore, option C is the correct answer as it inaccurately describes the function of Test Management tools.

Looking for defects in a system does not require ignoring system details, but rather paying attention to them and understanding how they affect the system’s quality, functionality, and usability. Ignoring system details could lead to missing important defects or testing irrelevant aspects of the system.

Identifying defects may be perceived as criticism against product, especially by the developers or stakeholders who are invested in the product’s success. However, identifying defects is not meant to be a personal attack, but rather a constructive feedback that helps to improve the product and ensure its alignment with the requirements and expectations of the users and clients.

Looking for defects in system requires professional pessimism and curiosity, as testers need to anticipate and explore the possible ways that the system could fail, malfunction, or behave unexpectedly. Professional pessimism means being skeptical and critical of the system’s quality and reliability, while curiosity means being eager and interested in finding out the root causes and consequences of the defects.

Testing is often seen as a destructive activity instead of constructive activity, as it involves finding and reporting the flaws and weaknesses of the system, rather than creating or enhancing it. However, testing is actually a constructive activity, as it contributes to the system’s improvement, verification, validation, and optimization, and ultimately to the delivery of a high-quality product that meets the needs and expectations of the users and clients.

Achieving full code coverage does not guarantee that the component or system is fully tested or free of defects. Code coverage metrics indicate the extent to which the source code has been tested, but they do not account for the quality of the tests or whether all possible scenarios have been considered. Other types of testing, including functional, performance, and security testing, are necessary to ensure comprehensive testing. The ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 highlights that while high code coverage is beneficial, it does not equate to complete testing​​.