Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of condition coverage
b) Is not correct. Decision coverage is a higher level of coverage and the two terms are not defined as synonyms in the Glossary
c) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of statement coverage
d) Is correct. This is the Glossary definition of coverage as applied to decisions

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Relevant for integration testing
b) Is not correct. Relevant for component testing
c) Is correct. For acceptance testing, tests are designed to cover all workflows defined in the functional requirements documents.
d) Is not correct. Relevant for system testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. System testing does not test interfaces between components and interactions between different parts of the system; this is a target of integration tests
b) Is correct. Examples of work products that can be used as a test basis for component testing include detailed design, code, data model, component specifications. Examples of work products for system testing include system and software requirement specifications (functional and non-functional) use cases
c) Is not correct. Component testing does not ONLY focus on functional characteristics
d) Is not correct. Component tests are also executed by developers, whereas system testing typically is the responsibility of (independent) testers

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

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. The benefits are not when creating regressions tests, more in executing them
b) Is not correct. This is done by configuration management tools
c) Is not correct. This needs specialized tools
d) Is correct. Reduction in repetitive manual work (e.g., running regression tests, environment set up/tear down tasks, re-entering the same test data, and checking against coding standards), thus saving time

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Statement testing exercises the executable statements in the code, which might result in the absence of certain greetings not being tested
b) Is not correct. Unless the test charter specifically mentioned testing both the presence and the absence of each type of greeting, coverage can be difficult to assess for an exploratory test
c) Is not correct. State transition testing is useful for situations where the test object responds differently to an input depending on current conditions or previous history, but in this case the test object must decide whether the current date matches a particular milestone and thus whether to display the relevant greeting
d) Is correct. Decision testing involves test cases that follow the control flows that occur from a decision point, which in this case would be deciding whether a greeting should or should not be given

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

Considering each statement:

1. Each development activity should have a corresponding testing activity. TRUE
2. Reviewing should start as soon as final versions of documents become available. FALSE – it should start as soon as drafts are available
3. The design and implementation of tests should start during the corresponding development activity. FALSE – the analysis and design of tests should start during the corresponding development activity, not the implementation
4. Testing activities should start in the early stages of the software development lifecycle. TRUE

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Selection of tools is a test manager task
b) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
c) Is not correct. The tester does not decide on the release of the test object
d) Is not correct. The tester specifies the test cases, the test manager does the prioritization

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. A crash is clearly noticeable by the user
b) Is not correct. This is a defect, not a failure since there is something wrong in the code. It may not result in a visible or noticeable failure, for example if the changes in the source code file are only in comments
c) Is not correct. The use of wrong input variables may not result in a visible or noticeable failure, for example if nobody uses this particular algorithm; or if the wrong input variable has a similar value to the correct input variable; or if the FALSE result of the algorithm is not used
d) Is not correct. This type of fault will not necessarily lead to a failure; for example, if no one uses this special algorithm

Explanation / Rationale

The complete decision table is shown below:

To achieve full coverage, test cases covering rules 2 and 3 are needed. DT4 satisfies the constraints of rule 2, while DT2 satisfies the constraints of rule 3.

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Testing is context dependent, regardless of it being manual or automated (principle #6), but does not result in detecting a decreasing number of faults as described above
b) Is not correct. Exhaustive testing is impossible, regardless of the amount of effort put into testing (principle #2)
c) Is correct. Principle #5 says “If the same tests are repeated over and over again, eventually these tests no longer find any new defects. To detect new defects, existing tests and test data may need changing, and new tests may need to be written.” Automated regression testing of the same test cases will not bring new findings
d) Is not correct. ”Defect cluster together” (principle #4). A small number of modules usually contain most of the defects, but this does not mean that fewer and fewer defects will be found

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 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. The book provides general guidance, and is not a formal requirements document, a specification, or a set of use cases, user stories, or business processes
b) Is not correct. While you could consider the list as a set of test charters, it more closely resembles the list of test conditions
c) Is correct. The list of user interface best practices is the list of test conditions
d) Is not correct. The tests are not focused on failures that could occur, but rather on knowledge about what is important for the user, in terms of usability

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. It is possible to perform any of the test types (functional, non-functional, white-box) at any test level - so, although it is correct that functional and non-functional testing can be performed at system and acceptance test levels, it is incorrect to state that white-box testing is restricted to component and integration testing
b) Is not correct. It is possible to perform any of the test types (functional, non-functional, white-box) at any test level - so, it is incorrect to state that white-box testing is restricted to component testing
c) Is correct. It is possible to perform any of the test types (functional, non-functional, white-box) at any test level
d) Is not correct. It is possible to perform any of the test types (functional, non-functional, white-box) at any test level - so, it is incorrect to state that white-box testing is restricted to component testing and integration testing

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. 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

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. 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

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

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

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 not correct. A path through source code is one potential route through the code from the entry point to the exit point that could exercise a range of decision outcomes. Two different paths may exercise all but one of the same decision outcomes, and by just changing a single decision outcome a new path is followed. Test cases that would achieve decision coverage are typically a tiny subset of the test cases that would achieve path coverage. In practice, most non-trivial programs (and all programs with unconstrained loops, such as ‘while’ loops) have a potentially infinite number of possible paths through them and so measuring the percentage covered is practically infeasible
b) Is not correct. Coverage of business flows can be a focus of use case testing, but use cases rarely cover a single component. It may be possible to cover the decisions within business flows, but only if they were specified in enough detail, however this option only suggests coverage of “business flows” as a whole. Even if business flows would cover some decisions, the measure “Decision Coverage” don’t measure the percentage of business flows, but the percentage of decision outcomes exercised by the business flows
c) Is not correct. Achieving full decision coverage does require all ‘if’ statements to be exercised with both true and false outcomes, however, there are typically several other decision points in the code (e.g., ‘case’ statements and the code controlling loops) that also need to be taken into consideration when measuring decision coverage
d) Is correct. Decision coverage is a measure of the proportion of decision outcomes exercised (normally presented as a percentage)

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

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 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

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. Exploratory testing is not suitable to speed up tests, which are already specified. It is most useful when there are few or inappropriate specified requirements or significant time pressure on testing
b) Is not correct. The absence of a test charter, which may have been derived from the test analysis, is a poor precondition for the use of exploratory testing
c) Is correct. Exploratory tests should be performed by experienced testers with knowledge of similar applications and technologies
d) Is not correct. Explorative testing alone is not suitable to provide evidence that the test was very intensive, instead the evidence is provided in combination with other test methods

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

Considering the attributes:

• There is a role of a scribe – specified for walkthroughs, technical reviews, and inspections; thus, the reviews being performed cannot be informal reviews
• The purpose is to detect potential defects – the purpose of detecting potential defects is specified for all types of review.
• The review meeting is led by the author – this is not allowed for inspections and is typically not the author for technical reviews, but is part of walkthroughs, and allowed for informal reviews
• Reviewers find potential issues by individual review - all types of reviews can include individual review (even informal reviews)
• A review report is produced - all types of reviews can produce a review report, although it would be less likely for an informal review

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This activity is performed during the test design activity (test design)
b) Is not correct. This activity is performed during the test implementation activity (test implementation)
c) Is not correct. This activity is performed during the test completion activity (test completion)
d) Is correct. This activity is performed during the test analysis activity (test analysis)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Informal review does not use a formal process
b) Is not correct. Use of checklists are optional
c) Is correct. Inspection is a formal process based on rules and checklists
d) Is not correct. Does not explicitly require a formal process and the use of checklists is optional

Explanation / Rationale

The correct pairings of test activities and test tools are:

1. Performance measurement and dynamic analysis – (b) Dynamic analysis tools
2. Test execution and logging – (a) Code coverage tools
3. Management of testing and testware – (d) Defect management tools
4. Test design – (c) Test data preparation tools

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

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. This is error guessing
b) Is not correct. This is black-box test technique
c) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
d) Is not correct. This is exploratory testing

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

For the input equivalence partitions given, the above used boundary value technique yields the following 8 coverage items:

10°C, 11°C, 15°C, 16°C, 19°C, 20°C, 22°C, 23°C.

Hence, the options have the following boundary value coverage:
a) Is not correct. 4 out of 8 (11, 20 ,22 and 23)
b) Is not correct. 3 out of 8 (15, 19 and 23)
c) Is correct. 5 out of 8 (10, 16, 19, 22 and 23)
d) Is not correct. 3 out of 8 (15, 19 and 22)