Explanation / Rationale

Proposed test case covers all five possible single valid transitions in the given state diagram (S1->S2, S2->S1, S2->S3, S3->S2, and S3->S1).

Thus:
a) Is not correct. Because no invalid transitions are covered
b) Is correct. Because all valid transitions are covered
c) Is not correct. Because all valid transitions are covered
d) Is not correct. Because the test cases do not have pairs of transitions specified

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Traceability will allow existing test cases to be linked with updated and deleted requirements (although there is no support for new requirements), but it will not help with the automation of maintenance testing
b) Is correct. If all test cases are linked with requirements, then whenever a new test case (with traceability) is added, it is possible to see if any previously uncovered requirements are covered by the new test case
c) Is not correct. Traceability between the test basis and test artifacts will not provide information on which testers found high-severity defects, and, even if this information could be determined, it would be of limited value
d) Is not correct. Traceability can help with identifying test cases affected by changes, however areas impacted by side-effects would be the focus of regression testing

Explanation / Rationale

There is at least one test for each column in the decision table. However, column one requires two tests, one where the account is invalid and another where the account is valid, but the password is invalid, so the minimum number of tests is four.

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Making decisions about what to test are documented in the test plan. This means when you are planning the test and there are budget limitations, prioritizing is needed; what should be tested and what should be omitted
b) Is not correct. Test monitoring and control
c) Is not correct. Common test metrics
d) Is not correct. It is a part of test analysis

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Regression testing does not check successful implementation of corrections and confirmation testing does not check for side effects
b) Is not correct. The statement about confirmation testing should be about regression testing
c) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
d) Is not correct. Testing new functionality is not regression testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Exploratory testing is a form of experience-based testing, which benefits from the skills and experience of the tester
b) b) Is not correct. Exploratory testing is useful to complement formal testing techniques
c) Is not correct. In session-based test management, exploratory testing is conducted within a defined time-box, and the tester uses a test charter containing test objectives to guide the testing
d) Is not correct. Exploratory testing can incorporate the use of other black-box, white-box, and experience-based techniques referenced in this syllabus

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While recognizing different kinds of failures is a benefit of tester independence, in the scenario here no code yet exists that can fail, and the problem is that the developer and product owner are both assuming different things about the acceptance criteria
b) Is not correct. Developers losing a sense of responsibility for quality is a drawback, not a benefit
c) Is not correct. While the effect of the discovery of this disagreement is the earlier removal of the defect, prior to coding, defects can be discovered early by various people, not just independent testers
d) Is correct. Challenging stakeholder assumptions is a benefit of tester independence, and here the developer and product owner are both assuming different things about the acceptance criteria

Explanation / Rationale

There are three equivalence partitions, with the boundaries as shown:

• Invalid too low (0.4 and below)
• Valid (0.5 to 25.0)
• Invalid too high (25.1 and above)

Thus:
a) Is not correct. None of those four boundary values are included in this set of tests. These tests do cover the equivalence partitions
b) Is not correct. All these four boundary values are included in this set of tests, but two additional values are included, one for each boundary. These are the values associated with three-point boundary value analysis
c) Is correct. Each of those four two-point boundary values are included in this set of tests
d) Is not correct. These four values are all included in the valid partition

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Although the description of regression testing is largely correct, the description of confirmation testing (which should be testing a defect has been fixed) is not correct
b) Is correct. The descriptions of both confirmation and regression testing match the intent of those in the syllabus
c) Is not correct. Although the description of regression testing is largely correct, the description of confirmation testing (re-running all previously run tests to get the same results) is not correct, as the purpose of confirmation testing is to check that tests that previously failed now pass (the fix worked)
d) Is not correct. Although the description of confirmation testing is largely correct, the description of regression testing (re-running tests that previously failed) is not correct (this is a more detailed description of confirmation testing)

Explanation / Rationale

There are three equivalence partitions:

• No sale completed (0.0 gallons)
• A valid sale occurs (0.1 to 50.0 gallons)
• An invalid amount is selected (50.1 or more gallons)

Thus:
a) Is correct. This set of input values has exactly one test per equivalence partition
b) Is not correct. This set of input values has does not cover the invalid amount partition
c) Is not correct. This set of input values has two tests for the valid sale equivalence partition, which is not the minimum
d) Is not correct. This set of input values covers the three-point boundary values for the two boundaries, not the minimum number required to cover the equivalence partitions

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The test result is given in the short summary
b) Is correct. When testing different versions of software, identifying information is necessary
c) Is not correct. You are just writing the defect report; hence, the status is automatically open
d) Is not correct. This information is useful for the tester but does not need to be included in the defect report

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While enabling required tests to be identified in an early stage is a testing contribution to success, there is no indication in the question that the tester did so
b) Is not correct. Ensuring processes are carried out properly is part of quality assurance, not a testing contribution to success
c) Is correct. Reducing the risk of fundamental design defects is a testing contribution to success. Database structure is related to design, and performance problems can be a significant product risk
d) Is not correct. While reducing the risk of untestable functionality is a testing contribution to success, the tester here has not identified something untestable, but rather something that would result in performance tests failing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. One too few (see the four correct partitions in the correct answer)
b) Is not correct. One too much (see the four correct partitions in the correct answer)
c) Is not correct. Two too few (see the four correct partitions in the correct answer)
d) Is correct. The 4 equivalence partitions correspond to the description in the question, i.e., at least one test case must be created for each equivalence partition:

1. Equivalence partition: 0 ≤ employment time ≤ 2
2. Equivalence partition: 2 < employment time < 5
3. Equivalence partition: 5 ≤ employment time ≤ 10
4. Equivalence partition: 10 < employment time

Explanation / Rationale

The following valid input equivalence partitions can be identified:

• Hours

1. Below 3 hours
2. 3 to 6 hours
3. Above 6 hours

• Intensity

4. Very low
5. Low
6. Medium
7. High

The given test cases cover the following valid input equivalence partitions:

Thus, the missing valid input equivalence partitions are: (2), (5) and (7). These can be covered by two test cases, as (2) can be combined with either (5) or (7).
Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Reviews should increase the quality of specifications, however the time required for development and testing should decrease
b) Is not correct. Detecting defects is generally easier earlier in the lifecycle
c) Is not correct. Reviews will result in fewer missed requirements and better communication between testers and developers, however this is not true for static analysis
d) Is correct. This is a benefit of static analysis

Explanation / Rationale

Given the annotated state model below:

The options achieve the following transition coverage:
a) Is not correct: OFF (2) WAIT (1) OFF (2) WAIT (3) TRICKLE (5) CHARGE (9) HIGH (10) CHARGE (7) LOW = 7 transitions (out of 10)
b) Is not correct: WAIT (3) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (1) OFF (2) WAIT (3) TRICKLE (5) CHARGE (7) LOW (8) CHARGE = 7 transitions (out of 10)
c) Is not correct: HIGH (10) CHARGE (7) LOW (8) CHARGE (6) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (3) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (3) TRICKLE = 6 transitions (out of 10)
d) Is correct: WAIT (3) TRICKLE (5) CHARGE (9) HIGH (10) CHARGE (6) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (1) OFF (2) WAIT = 8 transitions (out of 10)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. If inadequate developer testing were the problem, the confirmation test would not pass in step 3
b) Is not correct. The same tester who successfully performed the confirmation test in step 3 is repeating it in step 5
c) Is correct. Configuration management maintains the integrity of the software. If a test that passes in step 3 fails in step 5, then something is different between those two steps. One possible difference is the test object, the option listed here. Another possible difference is the between the development environment and the test environment, but that is not an option listed here
d) Is not correct. If the developers were not fixing the defect, the confirmation test would not pass in step 3

Explanation / Rationale

Considering the scenario:

1. ‘testing is based on interface specifications’ – the test basis for integration testing includes interface specifications (along with communication protocol specification), while these are not included for any of the other test levels
2. ‘testing is focused on finding failures in communication’ - failures in the communication between tested components is included as a typical failure for integration testing, but failures in communication is not included for any of the other test levels
3. ‘the test approach uses both functional and structural test types’ - functional and structural test types are both included as possible approaches for integration testing, and would also be appropriate for any of the other test levels, although they are only otherwise explicitly mentioned in the syllabus for system testing

Thus:
a) Is correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

Performance testing is a test type, not a test level. Component testing focuses on defects in separately testable modules or objects, integration testing on defects in interfaces and interactions, system testing on defects in the whole test object, and acceptance testing is not typically focused on identifying defects.

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

Product risks exist when a work product may fail to satisfy legitimate needs, while project risks are situations that could have a negative impact on the project’s ability to achieve its objectives. So:

A. Incorrect totals on screens = product risk
B. Change to acceptance criteria during acceptance testing = project risk
C. Users find the soft keyboard too hard to use with your app = product risk
D. System responds too slowly to user input during search string entry = product risk
E. Testers not allowed to report test results in daily standup meetings = project risk

Thus:
a) Is not correct. This list is entirely backwards
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct. While E is about product quality and product risks, the failure to communicate test results is a project risk per the syllabus
d) Is not correct. Product risks can be functional and non-functional, so d is also a product risk

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Statement coverage is a measure of the proportion of executable statements exercised by tests. The number of executable statements is often close to the number of lines of code minus the comments, but this option only talks about the number of lines of code exercised and not the proportion exercised
b) Is correct. Statement coverage is a measure of the proportion of executable statements exercised by tests (normally presented as a percentage)
c) Is not correct. Statement coverage is a measure of the percentage of executable statements exercised by tests, however many of the lines of source code are not executable (e.g., comments)
d) Is not correct. Statement coverage is a measure of the proportion of executable statements exercised by tests. This option only talks about the number of executable statements exercised and not the proportion (or percentage) exercised

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Exploratory testing is often carried out when timescales are short, so making in-depth investigations of the background of the test object is unlikely
b) Is correct. Glossary definition
c) Is not correct. Based on the Glossary definition of session-based testing, but with test execution replaced by test analysis
d) Is not correct. Glossary definition of experience-based testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. error guessing is not a usability technique for guessing how users may fail to interact with the test object
b) Is not correct. Although a tester who used to be a developer may use their personal experience to help them when performing error guessing, the technique is not based on prior knowledge of development
c) Is correct. The basic concept behind error guessing is that the tester tries to guess what mistakes may have been made by the developer and what defects may be in the test object based on past-experience (and sometimes checklists)
d) Is not correct. Duplicating the development task has several flaws that make it impractical, such as the requirement for the tester to have equivalent skills to the developer and the time involved in performing the development. It is not error guessing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. R4 is dependent on R2, so R2 should be tested before R4
b) Is not correct. R4 is dependent on R2, R5 and R6, so R5 and R6 should be tested before R4
c) Is correct. The tests are specified in a sequence that takes the dependencies into account
d) Is not correct. R2 is dependent on R3, so R3 should be tested before R2

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. This explains that each use case specifies some behavior that a subject can perform in collaboration with one or more actors. It also (later) explains that tests are designed to exercise the defined behaviors (basic, exceptional and errors)
b) Is not correct. Use cases normally specify requirements, and so do not ‘include’ the components that will implement them
c) Is not correct. Tests based on use cases do exercise interactions between the actor and the system, but they are focused on the functionality and do not consider the ease of use of user interfaces
d) Is not correct. Tests do cover the use case paths through the use case, but there is no concept of decision coverage of these paths, and certainly not of business process flows

Explanation / Rationale

Glossary defines the following tests as:

• Test suite: “A set of test scripts or test procedures to be executed in a specific test run.” (1A)
• Test case: “A set of preconditions, inputs, actions (where applicable), expected results and post conditions, developed based on test conditions” (2C)
• Test script: “A sequence of instructions for the execution of a test” (3B)
• Test charter: “Documentation of test activities in session-based exploratory testing” (4D)

Thus:
a) Is correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Analyzing a defect is part of debugging, not testing
b) Is correct. Creating test data is a test implementation task
c) Is not correct. While a tester may need to identify a test item’s version for results reporting purposes, assigning a test item’s version is part of configuration management
d) Is not correct. Writing a user story is not a testing activity and should be done by the product owner

Explanation / Rationale

The possible mappings of points 1 to 4 can be justified as follows:

1. Approach 3 is analytical: Risk-based testing is an example of an analytical approach, where tests are designed and prioritized based on the level of risk
2. Approach 2 is standard-compliant: The control algorithms is checked against industry-specific standard of the energy saving regulation.
3. Approach 4 is consultative: This type of test strategy is driven primarily by the advice, guidance, or instructions of stakeholders, business domain experts, or technology experts, who may be outside the test team or outside the organization itself
4. Approach 1 is reactive: Exploratory testing is a common technique employed in reactive strategies, whereby the explorative testing is assigned to the experience-based testing category

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The root cause is the distraction that the programmer experienced while programming
b) Is not correct. The accepting of invalid inputs is the failure
c) Is not correct. The error is the mistaken thinking that resulted in putting the defect in the code
d) Is correct. The problem in the code is a defect

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. This is maintainability testing, not maintenance testing
b) Is not correct. This is a trigger for maintenance testing: Operational tests of the new environment as well as of the changed software
c) Is not correct. This is the trigger for maintenance testing: testing restore/retrieve procedures after archiving for long retention periods
d) Is not correct. This is the trigger for maintenance testing: Reactive modification of a delivered software product to correct emergency defects that have caused actual failures

Explanation / Rationale

The change in behavior may be either functional or non-functional you need to run change-related tests, some of which are confirmation tests and others are regression tests.

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is correct

Explanation / Rationale

Each transition must be traversed at least once. To do so, the first test can cover the happy path, a successful purchase, the next test cancels, or timeout from waiting for pumping, the next test cancels, or timeout from waiting for fuel type, and the last test the insertion of an invalid credit card. While the order is immaterial, fewer than four tests fail to cover one of the transitions inbound to waiting for customer or violates the rules about where a test starts or ends. More than four tests include tests that re-traverse already-covered transitions.

Thus:
a) Is correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct
b) Is not correct. The evaluation of the test automation skills and training, mentoring and coaching needs of the testers who will use the tool should have been performed as part of the tool selection activity
c) Is not correct. The decision on whether the tool provides the required functionality and does not duplicate existing tools should have been performed as part of the tool selection activity
d) Is not correct. The evaluation of the tool vendor in terms of the training and other support they provide should have been performed as part of the tool selection activity

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Statement coverage measures the percentage of statements exercised by test cases
b) Is correct. Statement testing exercises the executable statements in the code. Statement coverage is measured as the number of statements executed by the tests divided by the total number of executable statements in the test object, normally expressed as a percentage
c) Is not correct. The coverage does not measure pass/fail
d) Is not correct. It is a metric and does not provide true/false statements

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Structure-based, or white-box techniques are based on an analysis of the architecture, detailed design, internal structure, or the code of the test object
b) Is correct. Behavior-based, or black-box techniques are based on an analysis of the appropriate test basis (e.g., formal requirements documents, specifications, use cases, user stories, or business processes), which describe functional and non-functional behavior
c) Is not correct. Experience-based techniques leverage the experience of developers, testers, and users to determine what should be tested
d) Is not correct. Error guessing is a type of experience-based testing, which is not black-box

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Incremental development involves establishing requirements, designing, building, and testing a system in pieces
b) Is not correct. This is a sequential model
c) Is not correct. This describes the waterfall model
d) Is not correct. Testing alone is not an increment/additional step in the development

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Percentage of test cases prepared is a common metric during test preparation while percentage of test cases passed, failed, not run, etc., are common during test execution
b) Is not correct. Defect reports are typically filed during test execution, based on failures found
c) Is not correct. Test environment preparation is part implementation and would generally be complete before test execution
d) Is not correct. Defects are typically reported during test execution, based on failures found, so the cost to find the next defect is available during test execution only

Explanation / Rationale

The test cases should be scheduled in priority order, but the schedule must also take account of the dependencies.

The two highest priority test cases (TC1 and TC3) are both dependent on TC4, so the first three test cases should be scheduled as either TC4 – TC1 – TC3 or TC4 – TC3 – TC1 (we have no way to discriminate between TC1 and TC3).
Next, we need to consider the remaining medium priority test case, TC6. TC6 is dependent on TC5, but TC5 is dependent on TC2, so the next two three cases must be scheduled as
TC2 – TC5 – TC6.
This means there are two possible optimal schedules:

• TC4 – TC1 – TC3 – TC2 – TC5 – TC6 or
• TC4 – TC3 – TC1 – TC2 – TC5 – TC6

Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While impact analysis is useful during maintenance testing it is not necessary for confirmation testing since confirmation testing is on the intended effects of a bug fix or other change
b) Is not correct. Confirmation and regression testing are two separate activities, and confirmation testing is not part of system design
c) Is correct. Impact analysis can be used to select regression tests for maintenance testing
d) Is not correct. Confirmation testing is not part of impact analysis, though confirmation testing will typically happen during maintenance testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While deviation from standards is a typical, we are not given any standard with which the user stories should comply
b) Is correct. Contradiction is a typical requirements defect. AC3 and AC5 conflict if the Rod is touched to an object that extends more than 1 meter in any direction from the point at which touched, since AC1 does not limit the size of the objects to be touched
c) Is not correct. While security vulnerabilities are typical defects, there is nothing here related to security
d) Is not correct. While test coverage gaps are typical defects, including missing tests for acceptance criteria, we are not provided with any information about which tests do and do not exist