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

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. Only two of the equivalence partitions are covered in this set of tests
b) Is not correct. Each of those four boundary values are included in this set of tests, but the question asked for equivalence partition coverage with minimal tests, so either 0.5 or 25.0 should be dropped
c) Is correct. Each of these three equivalence partitions are covered in this set of tests
d) Is not correct. Only one of those equivalence partitions is covered by this test

Explanation / Rationale

The correct pairing of test activities and tasks is:

A. Test design – (2) Identifying test data to support the test cases
B. Test implementation – (3) Prioritizing test procedures and creating test data
C. Test execution – (4) Analyzing discrepancies to determine their cause
D. Test completion – (1) Entering change requests for open defect reports

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

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

a) Is not correct. While this information is useful for developers, it does not provide managers with a sense of the impact on product quality
b) Is not correct. This summary does not provide developers or managers with the necessary information and attacks the developers
c) Is not correct. This summary does not provide developers or managers with the necessary information and attacks the developers
d) Is correct. This summary gives a good sense of the failure and its impact

Explanation / Rationale

Traceability assists with:

• Selecting regression tests in terms of analyzing the impact of changes (1D)
• Evaluating completeness of test execution which makes testing auditable (2B)
• Identifying which user stories have open defect reports which improves understandability of test status reports to include status of test basis items (3A)
• Evaluating whether the number of tests for each requirement is consistent with the level of product risk which provides information to assess test process quality (i.e., alignment of test effort with risk) (4C)

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

a) Is correct. Test management tools support the activities associated with test manager including metrics
b) Is not correct. Static code analysis metrics would have to do with the code only, not testing as a whole
c) Is not correct. These tools report on test basis coverage and code coverage only, not testing as a whole
d) Is not correct. Model-Based testing tools focus on one specific area, not testing as a whole

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Defect clustering has to do with where defects are most likely to be found, not whether all of them can be found
b) Is correct. Testing can show the presence of defects but cannot prove their absence, which makes it impossible to know if you have caught all the bugs. Further, the impossibility of exhaustive testing makes it impossible for you to catch all the bugs
c) Is not correct. This principle says that you can find and remove many bugs but still release an unsuccessful software product, which is not what the product owner is asking you to ensure
d) Is not correct. Root cause analysis is not a testing principle

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. 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

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. Quality should be the responsibility of everyone working on the project and not the sole responsibility of the test team
b) Is not correct. First, it is not a benefit if an external test team does not meet delivery deadlines, and second, there is no reason to believe that external test teams will feel they do not have to meet strict delivery deadlines
c) Is not correct. It is bad practice for the test team to work in complete isolation, and we would expect an external test team to be concerned with changing project requirements and communicate well with developers
d) Is correct. Specifications are never perfect, meaning that assumptions will have to be made by the developer. An independent tester is useful in that they can challenge and verify the assumptions and subsequent interpretation made by the developer

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The programmer appears to be performing unit testing on their own code
b) Is not correct. Code coverage is useful for unit testing, but it is not a tester mindset
c) Is not correct. The programmer’s mindset included contemplating what might be wrong with the code, but that is not a tester’s mindset
d) Is correct. This tester mindset, attention to detail, will help programmers find defects during unit testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The lack of familiarity of the requirements author with the fitness domain is a root cause
b) Is not correct. The lack of training of the tester in state transition testing was one of the root causes of the defect (the developer presumably created the defect, as well)
c) Is correct. The incorrect configuration data represents faulty software in the fitness tracker (a defect), that may cause failures
d) Is not correct. The lack of experience in designing user interfaces for wearable devices is a typical example of a root cause of a defect

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. Tester and developer are NOT roles in a formal review
b) Is not correct. Developer is NOT a role in a formal review
c) Is not correct. Designer is NOT a role in a formal review
d) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers

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. 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

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

a) Is not correct. Risk is determined by considering a combination of the likelihood of problem situations and the harm that may result from them but cannot be calculated by adding these together (the probability would be in the range 0 to 1 and the harm could be in dollars)
b) Is not correct. Risk is determined by considering a combination of a likelihood and an impact. This definition only considers likelihood and chance (both forms of probability) with no consideration of the impact (or harm)
c) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
d) Is not correct. Risk is determined by considering a combination of a likelihood and an impact. This definition only considers hazards and losses (a hazard is a bad event, like a risk, while loss is a form of impact) with no consideration of the likelihood (or probability)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. See reason from correct answer
b) Is not correct. See reason from correct answer
c) Is correct. This is a case where the requirement gives an enumeration of discrete values. Each enumeration value is an equivalence class by itself; therefore, each will be tested when using equivalence partitioning test technique
d) Is not correct. See reason from correct answer

Explanation / Rationale

The following valid equivalence partitions can be identified:

1. Up to 1000 - Couch Potato!
2. Above 1000, up to 2000 - Lazy Bones!
3. Above 2000, up to 4000 - Getting There!
4. Above 4000, up to 6000 - Not Bad!
5. Above 6000 - Way to Go!

The sets of test inputs therefore cover the following partitions:
a) Is not correct. 0 (1), 1000 (1), 2000 (2), 3000 (3), 4000 (3) – 3 partitions (out of 5)
b) Is not correct. 1000 (1), 2001 (3), 4000 (3), 4001 (4), 6000 (4) – 3 partitions (out of 5)
c) Is not correct. 123 (1), 2345 (3), 3456 (3), 4567 (4), 5678 (4) – 3 partitions (out of 5)
d) Is correct. 666 (1), 999 (1), 2222 (3), 5555 (4), 6666 (5) – 4 partitions (out of 5)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. The metrics-based approach: estimating the testing effort based on metrics of former similar projects or based on typical values
b) Is not correct. This is expert-based approach: estimating the tasks based on estimates made by the owners of the tasks or by experts
c) Is not correct. This is expert-based approach: estimating the tasks based on estimates made by the responsible team of the tasks or by experts
d) Is not correct. This is expert-based approach: estimating the tasks based on estimates made by the owners of the tasks or by experts

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

a) Is correct. Impact analysis may be used to identify those areas of the system that will be affected by the fix, and so the extent of the impact (e.g., necessary regression testing) can be used when deciding if the change is worthwhile
b) Is not correct. Although testing migrated data is part of maintenance testing (see conversion testing), impact analysis does not identify how this is done
c) Is not correct. Impact analysis shows which parts of a system are affected by a change, so it can show the difference between different hot fixes in terms of the impact on the system, however it does not give any indication of the value of the changes to the user
d) Is not correct. Impact analysis shows which parts of a system are affected by a change; it cannot provide an indication of the effectiveness of test cases

Explanation / Rationale

Test 01.001 must come first, followed by 01.002, to satisfy dependencies. Afterwards, 01.004 and 01.003 should be run in either order, followed by 01.005, to satisfy priority.
Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Defects found early are often much cheaper to remove than defects detected later in the lifecycle
b) Is not correct. Dynamic testing still has its challenging because they find other types of defects
c) Is not correct. This is dynamic testing
d) Is not correct. Static testing is important for safety-critical computer systems

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. This is an objective listed
b) Is not correct. This is debugging
c) Is not correct. This is an activity within the test execution group of activities within the test process
d) Is not correct. This is part of debugging

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The test described is a non-functional test, it is a portability test, not a performance test
b) Is not correct. Processor test is not a defined test type
c) Is not correct. The test described is a non-functional test, specifically a portability test
d) Is correct. Testing supported devices is a non-functional test, specifically a portability test

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This is a white-box test technique
b) Is not correct. This is a white-box test technique
c) Is not correct. This is an experience-based test technique
d) Is correct. Black-box test techniques are based on an analysis of the appropriate test basis (e.g., formal requirements documents, specifications, use cases, user stories)

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

Considering each of the pieces of information:

1. Degree of impact (severity) of the defect – the developers are already aware of the problem and are waiting to fix it, so this is a less important piece of information.
2. Identification of the test object – as the developers are already aware of the problem and you are performing system testing, and you have already provided the version of the system you are testing you can assume they know the object that was being tested, so this is a less important piece of information.
3. Details of the test environment – the set-up of the test environment may have a noticeable effect on the test results, and detailed information should be provided, so this is an important piece of information.
4. Urgency/priority to fix – the developers are already aware of the problem and are waiting to fix it, so this is a less important piece of information.
5. Actual results – the actual results may well help the developers to determine what is going wrong with the system, so this is an important piece of information.
6. Reference to test case specification – this will show the developers the tests you ran, including the test inputs that caused the system to fail (and expected results), so this is an important piece of information.

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

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

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

a) Is not correct. While scope is a topic addressed in a test plan, the implementation of a risk-based testing strategy on this project is the approach, so this topic should be addressed in that section
b) Is correct. Approach is a topic addressed in a test plan and the implementation of a risk-based testing strategy on this project is the approach
c) Is not correct. While metrics for test monitoring and control is a topic addressed in a test plan, the implementation of a risk-based testing strategy on this project is the approach, so this topic should be addressed in that section
d) Is not correct. Configuration management is not a topic addressed in a test plan

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

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

a) Is not correct. Contradiction to principle 3: “Early testing saves time and money”
b) Is correct. This is one objective of testing
c) Is not correct. Principle #2 states that exhaustive testing is impossible, so one can never prove that all defects were identified
d) Is not correct. To make an assessment whether a defect will cause a failure or not, one must detect the defect first. Saying that no remaining defect will cause a failure implicitly means that all defects were found. This again contradicts principle #2

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