Free Practice Questions for iSQI CTFL_Syll2018 Exam

It describes how test cases are derived from a use case. A use case is a description of a set of sequences of actions, including variants, that a system performs to yield an observable result of value to an actor1. An actor can be a human user or another system. Test cases are designed to cover various user behaviors, including basic, exceptional or alternative and error behaviors associated with each use case1. Option A is incorrect, as test cases derived from a use case are not based on non-functional requirements such as usability, but on functional requirements that describe what the system does1. Option C is incorrect, as test cases derived from a use case are not created using white-box test techniques, but using black-box test techniques that focus on the inputs and outputs of the system1. Option D is incorrect, as test cases derived from a use case are not based on pair testing, which is a technique that involves two testers working together to find defects1. References: 1, Section 4.2.4

The testability of requirements is evaluated during the Test Analysis and Design stage of the fundamental test process3. The fundamental test process consists of five main activities:

Test Planning and Control: This activity involves defining the scope, objectives, approach, and resources for testing, as well as monitoring and controlling the test progress and results3.

Test Analysis and Design: This activity involves analyzing the test basis (such as requirements, design, etc.) and designing the test cases, procedures, and environment3. The testability of requirements is evaluated during this activity, as it involves checking the clarity, completeness, consistency, and testability of the requirements3.

Test Implementation and Execution: This activity involves implementing the test cases and procedures, preparing the test environment and data, executing the test cases, and logging the test results and incidents3.

Evaluating Exit Criteria and Reporting: This activity involves evaluating the test results against the exit criteria (such as coverage, defect rate, etc.) and reporting the test status and outcomes to the stakeholders3.

Test Closure Activities: This activity involves finalizing the test documentation, archiving the test artifacts, evaluating the test process and lessons learned, and releasing the test resources

A key difference between black box and white box test design techniques is that white box techniques can measure the extent of code coverage, while black box techniques cannot. Code coverage is a measure of how much of the code of a system or component has been executed by a test or a set of tests. White box techniques use software code to derive test cases that cover specific aspects of the code, such as statements, branches, paths, or data flows. White box techniques can use tools or methods to measure the code coverage achieved by the test cases and identify any gaps or redundancies. Black box techniques use functional design specifications to derive test cases that cover specific aspects of the functionality, behavior, or quality of the system or component, such as inputs, outputs, equivalence classes, boundary values, states, transitions, etc. Black box techniques do not use or access the code of the system or component, and therefore cannot measure the code coverage.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 4.3 and 4.4

For the code fragment given below, one test case is required for statement coverage and two test cases are required for branch coverage. Statement coverage requires that every executable statement in the code is executed at least once. Branch coverage requires that every possible outcome of each decision point in the code is executed at least once. The following table shows how to achieve statement and branch coverage for the code fragment:

Test Case

Input

Output

Statement Coverage

Branch Coverage

1

x = 3

y = 9

S1, S2, S3

T1 = true

2

x = 5

y = 25

S1, S2

T1 = false

As shown in the table, test case 1 covers all three statements (S1, S2, S3) in the code fragment, achieving 100% statement coverage. Test case 2 covers only two statements (S1, S2) in the code fragment, but it exercises a different outcome of the decision point T1 (if x < 4), achieving 100% branch coverage.

The test execution schedule would not be expected to see on an incident report from test execution, because it is not related to the incident itself, but rather to the overall plan and progress of testing . An incident report is a document that records any event that deviates from the expected or desired behaviour of the software under test . The other options are information that would be expected to see on an incident report from test execution. Option A is expected, because the version(s) of the software under test can help to identify and reproduce the incident . Option C is expected, because the expected results and actual results can help to describe and demonstrate the incident . Option D is expected, because the precise steps to reproduce the problem can help to analyse and resolve the incident .

 According to the syllabus, there are two main approaches for estimating test effort: metrics-based and expert-based. The metrics-based approach uses metrics from previous similar projects or industry data to calculate the test effort based on the size and complexity of the software under test. The expert-based approach relies on the experience and judgment of the owners of the testing tasks or subject matter experts who provide their estimates based on their knowledge of the software under test. The answer B is correct because it accurately describes the expert-based approach. The other answers are incorrect because they either confuse the metrics-based and expert-based approaches or describe them incorrectly.

References: Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Section 2.3.1, page 24-25.

Exploratory testing can replace black box techniques when testing time is very limited, because it is a type of experience-based technique that allows testers to design and execute tests based on their intuition, knowledge, and skills, without following a predefined test plan or test cases13. The other options are false statements about testing techniques. Option B is false, because test execution scheduling should give priority to specification-based or structure-based techniques, which are more systematic and objective than experience-based techniques13. Option C is false, because specification-based techniques cannot be used as a substitute for a poorly defined test basis, but rather require a clear and complete test basis to design effective test cases13. Option D is false, because experience-based techniques are not systematic and do not produce detailed test documentation, but rather rely on the tester’s judgement and creativity

The term ‘Pesticide paradox’ refers to the phenomenon where the effectiveness of test cases that are repeated and focused on the same scenarios decreases over time because they tend to find the same defects or no defects at all. This is because the system under test becomes more resistant or immune to the existing test cases, just like pests become more resistant or immune to pesticides over time. To overcome the pesticide paradox, test cases should be regularly reviewed and updated to cover new or changed requirements, scenarios, risks, or defects. Test cases should also be designed to cover different aspects and perspectives of the system under test, such as functionality, usability, performance, security, etc. You can find more information about the pesticide paradox in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.11.

The diagram lists various types of operating systems (LNX, W2K, WSP), databases (ORA, MSQ, SQL), and application servers (JBS, WSP) supported by the application under test. To test all possible combinations of these types, we need to multiply the number of options in each category. In this case, we have:

3 options for operating systems

3 options for databases

2 options for application servers

Therefore, we have 3 x 3 x 2 = 18 possible combinations to test.

However, if we look closely at the diagram, we can see that some combinations are not valid or feasible because they are not connected by lines. For example, we cannot test LNX with WSP as an application server because there is no line between them. Similarly, we cannot test W2K with JBS as an application server because there is no line between them. Therefore, we need to exclude these invalid combinations from our calculation.

If we count only the valid combinations that are connected by lines in the diagram, we get:

5 combinations for LNX (LNX-ORA-JBS, LNX-ORA-WSP, LNX-MSQ-JBS, LNX-MSQ-WSP, LNX-SQL-JBS)

5 combinations for W2K (W2K-ORA-WSP, W2K-MSQ-WSP, W2K-SQL-WSP)

5 combinations for WSP (WSP-ORA-JBS, WSP-ORA-WSP, WSP-MSQ-JBS, WSP-MSQ-WSP)

Therefore, we have 5 + 5 + 5 = 15 valid combinations to test.

You can find more information about testing combinations in Software Testing Foundations: A Study Guide for the Certified Tester Exam, Chapter 4, Section 4.22.

Risk-based testing is an approach to testing that prioritizes and focuses on testing activities based on the level of risk associated with each feature or function of the system under test. Risk-based testing aims to optimize the use of time, resources, and techniques for testing by identifying and addressing the most critical and likely sources of failure or harm in the system under test. Some examples of typical risk-based testing activities are:

Brainstorming sessions are held with a wide variety of stakeholders to identify possible failures in the system: This activity is part of the risk identification process, which involves gathering information and opinions from different perspectives and sources to discover potential risks in the system under test.

Tests are prioritized to ensure that those associated with critical parts of the system are executed earlier: This activity is part of the risk analysis and evaluation process, which involves assessing the probability and impact of each risk and ranking them according to their severity and importance.

The focus of testing is shifted to an area in the system where tests find more defects than expected: This activity is part of the risk mitigation and monitoring process, which involves taking actions to reduce or eliminate the risks and tracking their status and progress.

The evaluation of a risk-management tool to decide which tool to use for future projects is not an example of a typical risk-based testing activity because it is not directly related to testing the system under test based on its risks. Rather, it is an example of a tool selection or evaluation activity, which involves comparing and choosing a tool that can support or enhance the testing process based on criteria such as functionality, usability, reliability, compatibility, cost, etc. You can find more information about risk-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 3, Section 3.4.