iSQI CTFL_Syll2018 - ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (Syllabus 2018)

Statement testing is part of structure-based testing, which is a type of testing that verifies the internal structure or implementation of a software system, such as code, architecture, design, etc. Statement testing is a structure-based test technique that involves testing every statement in the code at least once to ensure that there are no syntax errors, logical errors, or hidden defects in the code. Statement testing requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the software system; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does.

The other types of testing mentioned in the question are not related to statement testing because they do not verify the internal structure or implementation of a software system. For example:

A. Experience-based testing: This type of testing relies on the skills, knowledge, intuition, and creativity of testers to design and execute test cases based on their experience with similar systems or situations.

B. Decision testing: This type of testing verifies every decision point in the code by testing all possible outcomes or branches of each decision point to ensure that there are no logical errors or hidden defects in the code.

C. Specification-based testing: This type of testing verifies the external behavior or functionality of a software system based on its requirements, specifications, design documents, or other sources of information.

You can find more information about statement testing and structure-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

The requirement given in

the image specifies

the charge for

a money transfer based on

the amount

of money transferred.

The amount can be anywhere from 1 to 5000 euros, with different charges applied for different ranges of amounts.

To test this requirement, we can use equivalence partitioning, which is a specification-based test technique that involves dividing the input or output values into groups or partitions that are expected to be treated in the same way by the system under test. For example, based on the requirement, we can identify the following equivalence partitions for the input amount:

EP1: Amount < 1 (invalid)

EP2: 1 <= Amount <= 1999 (valid, charge = 10 euros)

EP3: 2000 <= Amount <= 5000 (valid, charge = 15 euros)

EP4: Amount > 5000 (invalid)

The set of amounts that covers all equivalence partitions is C. 0-100-2000-6000. This set of amounts includes one value from each equivalence partition and ensures that all possible scenarios are tested. For example:

TC1: Amount = 0 -> Invalid input

TC2: Amount = 100 -> Valid input, charge = 10 euros

TC3: Amount = 2000 -> Valid input, charge = 15 euros

TC4: Amount = 6000 -> Invalid input

The other sets of amounts do not cover all equivalence partitions because they either include values that belong to the same partition or exclude values that belong to different partitions. For example:

A. 0-1999-2000-5000 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes two values that belong to EP2 (1999 and 2000) and excludes any value that belongs to EP3.

B. 1-2000-5001-10000 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes two values that belong to EP4 (5001 and 10000) and excludes any value that belongs to EP2.

D. 99-1-2000-4999.99 -> This set of amounts does not cover all equivalence partitions because it includes a value that is not an integer (4999.99), which violates the assumption that only integer values can occur.

You can find more information about equivalence partitioning in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.2.

A configuration management tool is a tool that allows users to manage and control the versions and changes of software artifacts, such as code, documents, test cases, etc. A configuration management tool can help prevent the loss of Sam’s updates by:

Providing a centralized repository where Sam can store and retrieve his test cases and other artifacts

Keeping track of the history and status of each artifact and allowing Sam to compare and revert to previous versions if needed

Supporting collaboration and communication among team members by allowing them to share and access the latest versions of the artifacts

The other tools mentioned in the question are not relevant for this scenario because they do not provide the same functionality or benefits as a configuration management tool. For example:

A. Incident management tool: This tool type allows users to record, track, manage, and report the defects found during testing. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.

C. Test execution tool: This tool type allows users to execute test cases automatically or semi-automatically and compare the actual results with the expected results. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.

D. Backup tool: This tool type allows users to create copies of data or files and store them in a different location or device for recovery purposes. It does not help with managing or controlling the versions or changes of test cases or other artifacts.

You can find more information about configuration management tools in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 6, Section 6.4.

A software company decided to buy a commercial application for its accounting operations. As part of the evaluation process, the company decided to assemble a team to test a number of candidate applications. The most suitable team for this goal would be a team with a mix of software testers and experts from the accounting department. This team would have the following advantages:

Software testers have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company. They can also use tools and techniques to support their testing activities and provide reliable and objective information about the quality and risk level of each candidate application.

Experts from the accounting department have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application. They can also provide feedback and suggestions for improvement based on their needs and expectations as end users or customers.

The other teams mentioned in the question are not as suitable for this goal as they are for other purposes or scenarios. For example:

A team from an outsourcing company which specializes in testing accounting software: This team might have the skills and experience to test accounting software, but they might not have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the specific requirements and criteria of the company that wants to buy the application. They might also lack the communication and collaboration with the stakeholders of the company who are involved in the evaluation process.

A team of users from the accounting department that will need to use the application on a daily basis: This team might have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application, but they might not have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company. They might also lack the tools and techniques to support their testing activities and provide reliable and objective information about the quality and risk level of each candidate application.

A team from the company’s testing team, due to their experience in testing software: This team might have the skills and experience to design, execute, and evaluate test cases based on the requirements and criteria of the company, but they might not have the knowledge and expertise to understand and validate the functionality and usability of each candidate application. They might also lack the feedback and suggestions for improvement based on the needs and expectations of the end users or customers.

Event B from S2 is an invalid transition, because it does not exist in the state table. The state table shows the possible transitions between states based on events. For each state, there is a corresponding row that indicates the next state for each event. For example, for state S1, the next state for event A is S2, for event B is S3, and so on. However, for state S2, there is no next state for event B, which means that this transition is invalid

The percentage of test conditions covered by test cases is a metric from the test design phase, as it measures how well the test cases cover the test basis13. The other metrics are from the test execution phase or the test closure phase.

The general principles of testing state that testing can show the presence of defects, but not their absence. Running the same test set more often will not increase the likelihood of finding new defects, unless the system or its environment changes. Therefore, statement A contradicts the general principles of testing. Statement B is true, as testing is context-dependent and should be tailored to the specific situation of a project. Statement C is also true, as early testing can help prevent defects and reduce rework. Statement D is true, as it reflects the Pareto principle or the 80/20 rule, which states that most defects are found in a small subset of a system’s modules.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Section 1.2

Experience-based testing is the test design technique for which a document containing a classification of all the defects found during the system test phase and after the delivery in the production environment can be considered a test basis. Experience-based testing is a technique that relies on the knowledge and intuition of the testers to design and execute test cases based on their experience with similar systems, technologies, domains, or defects. A document containing a classification of all the defects found during the system test phase and after the delivery in the production environment can provide valuable information and insights for testers to identify potential defect-prone areas or scenarios and focus their testing efforts accordingly1 explains experience-based testing as follows:

Experience-based testing techniques are based on the tester’s experience, knowledge and intuition. These techniques leverage the tester’s skill in finding defects and designing tests that are effective in exposing failures. Experience-based testing techniques are often used when there is no or insufficient documentation available for the system under test, or when there is not enough time to apply more formal techniques.

Some examples of experience-based testing techniques are:

Error guessing: The tester uses their personal experience or intuition to guess what functionality might fail or cause errors, and designs test cases accordingly.

Exploratory testing: The tester simultaneously learns about the system, designs test cases, executes tests, and reports results, using an iterative and interactive approach.

Checklist-based testing: The tester uses a list of items or tasks that need to be verified or completed during testing, based on previous experience or best practices.

A, C, and D are incorrect answers. Structure-based testing, decision coverage testing, and specification-based testing are not test design techniques for which a document containing a classification of all the defects found during the system test phase and after the delivery in the production environment can be considered a test basis. Structure-based testing is a technique that uses the information of the internal structure of the component or system to derive test cases. Decision coverage testing is a type of structure-based testing that aims to cover all the possible outcomes of each decision in the code (true and false) at least once. Specification-based testing is a technique that uses the requirements and functionality of the system to derive test cases. These techniques require access to the source code or documentation of the system under test, which are not provided by a document containing a classification of all the defects found during the system test phase and after the delivery in the production environment.

Equivalence Partitioning is a black-box test design technique that divides input data of a software module into partitions of equivalent data from which test cases can be derived. In this context, the valid equivalence partitions are:

Silver Tier: 0 to 400 Credits

Gold Tier: 401 to 800 Credits

Platinum Tier: 801 to 1400 Credits

Concierge Tier: 1401+ Credits

The test cases provided cover all these partitions:

TC1 covers the Silver Tier boundary at 400 Credits.

TC2 covers within the Gold Tier at 500 Credits.

TC3 covers the Gold Tier boundary at 800 Credits.

TC4 covers within the Concierge Tier at 1500 Credits.

Since all valid partitions are covered by the test cases, 100% of the valid Equivalence Partitions have been achieved.

The overall quality of the software can be increased by finding and fixing defects before releasing the software to the customers or users. A test case passes means that no defect was found in the tested functionality, which indicates a high quality. A test case fails, defect gets logged which subsequently gets fixed means that a defect was found and corrected, which improves the quality. Some tests are deferred because test environment is not available means that some functionality was not tested, which may leave some defects undetected, which reduces the quality. A bug is found but there is no corresponding test case means that a defect was found by chance or by other means than planned testing, which does not increase the quality of the testing process or the test coverage.