Free Practice Questions for ISTQB ISTQB-CTFL Exam

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.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Non-functional testing evaluates attributes like performance, security, and usability, which are typically assessed at the system test level or higher (A). It is not restricted to acceptance testing (B), goes beyond security and performance testing (C), and covers more than just user experience (D).

The correct outcome of a two-value boundary value analysis applied to the password length is the set of test cases represented by option D. Boundary value analysis is a test design technique that focuses on the values at the boundaries of an equivalence partition, such as the minimum and maximum values, or the values just above and below the boundaries. A two-value boundary value analysis uses two values for each boundary, one representing the valid value and one representing the invalid value. For example, if the valid range of values is from 4 to 7, then the two values for the lower boundary are 3 and 4, and the two values for the upper boundary are 7 and 8. The test cases in option D use these values for the password length, while also satisfying the other requirements of the password, such as containing at least one numeric character, one capital letter, and one lowercase letter. The test cases in option D are:

1RhT: a 4-character password that is valid

rSp53: a 5-character password that is valid

3N3e10: a 6-character password that is valid

8sBdby: an 8-character password that is invalid The test cases in the other options are incorrect, because they either use values that are not at the boundaries of the password length, or they do not meet the other requirements of the password. For example, the test cases in option A are:

1xA: a 3-character password that is invalid, but it does not contain a capital letter

aB11: a 4-character password that is valid

Pq1ZZab: a 7-character password that is valid

7iDD0a1x: an 8-character password that is invalid References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.1, Black-box Test Design Techniques1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Boundary Value Analysis, Equivalence Partition2

In Agile teams using the planning poker technique for estimating user stories, it is common practice to have further discussions and rounds of estimation if there is a significant discrepancy in the initial estimates. This helps in reaching a consensus and ensures that all team members understand the complexity and requirements of the user story. According to the ISTQB CTFL syllabus, planning poker involves discussions to clarify differences in estimates, especially when there is a wide range of values selected. By having Memb6 and Memb4, who provided the most pessimistic and optimistic estimates, explain their reasoning, it fosters a deeper understanding and encourages the team to converge towards a more accurate and agreed-upon estimate.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

The ratio-based estimation method relies on historical relationships between development and testing effort.

Using the given 5:3 ratio:

Thus, the correct answer is 270 person-days (D).

(A) and (C) are incorrect as they overestimate the effort.

(B) underestimates the testing effort based on the ratio.

Ratio-based estimation helps allocate resources effectively based on past project data.

In a formal review, the roles involved typically include the author, management, facilitator (also known as moderator), review leader, reviewers, and scribe. Each role has specific responsibilities to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the review process:

The author creates and refines the work product being reviewed.

Management allocates resources and supports the review process.

The facilitator manages the review meeting, ensuring it proceeds smoothly.

The review leader plans the review and ensures it meets its objectives.

Reviewers examine the work product to identify defects.

The scribe records issues raised during the review meeting​​.

The requirement specifies that a bonus should be paid if the total amount of sales (TAS) made during the year is 300,000€ or more. The software incorrectly implements this requirement with "IF (TAS = 300,000)" instead of "IF (TAS >= 300,000)". Using boundary value analysis (BVA), which is a common technique in software testing, the three test cases provided (TC1 = 299,999, TC2 = 300,000, and TC3 = 300,001) cover the critical boundary values around the condition.

TC1 tests just below the boundary (299,999),

TC2 tests exactly at the boundary (300,000),

TC3 tests just above the boundary (300,001).

Since the software incorrectly checks for TAS equal to 300,000, only TC2 will fail because the condition is exactly met and highlights the incorrect implementation of the decision logic.