Explanation / Rationale

Considering the potential inconsistencies:

• 6-10 – If librarians should get system responses within 5 seconds, it is NOT inconsistent for borrowers to get system responses within 3 seconds.
• 6-15 - If librarians should get system responses within 5 seconds, it is inconsistent for all users to get system responses within 3 seconds.
• 7-12 – If borrowers can borrow a maximum of 3 books at one time it is NOT inconsistent for them to also reserve books (if they are on-loan).
• 9-11 – If a borrower can be fined for failing to return a book within 3 weeks it is inconsistent for them to also be allowed to borrow a book at no cost for a maximum of 4 weeks – as the length of valid loans are different.

Of the potential inconsistencies, 6-15 and 9-11 are valid inconsistencies.

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

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, 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

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. 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 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

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

a) Is not correct. It is described that the software architect must have completed the system specification
b) Is not correct. ‘Checklist-based’, last sentence it is documented that you should also look for defects outside the checklist
c) Is not correct. It is described: every reviewer did his review done comment
d) Is correct. It is described that a checklist is available, but who provides the checklist?

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. 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 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. Static testing (reviews) contributes, but could not ensure, that requirements are detailed enough
b) Is correct. Testing contributes to the achievement of quality in a variety of ways, e.g., such as reducing the risk of inadequate software quality
c) Is not correct. This is quality assurance but not testing
d) Is not correct. The quality cannot be measured by counting the number of executed test cases without knowing the outcome

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 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

a) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
b) Is not correct. The “degree of tester’s independence” does not play a role in exit criteria
c) Is not correct. “Availability of test environment” is an entry criterion
d) Is not correct. “The Qualification of Tester” is not a typical exit criterion

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. During planning it is decided whether checklists are used. The preparation of the checklists is not part of the planning. In addition, the reviewers are neither involved in the planning, nor responsible for the creation of the checklists
b) Is not correct. During issue communication, any potential defects that have been identified in the individual review are communicated. The completion of checklists by the reviewers already takes place, if at all, during individual review
c) Is not correct. During review session, the reviewers communicate any potential defects of the work product that they did identify during the individual review. Defect reports are only created during the fixing and reporting activity
d) Is correct. Initiating the review (“Kick-off”) involves distributing the work product and other materials, like checklists

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. 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 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 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

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 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. While this test does match the description of an integration test, it is a non-functional test
b) Is correct. This test matches the description of an integration test and it is a non-functional test
c) Is not correct. This test does not match the description of a component test and it is not a functional test
d) Is not correct. While this test is a non-functional test, it does not match the description of a component test

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. If there was no agreement on targets, it is impossible to reach the targets. Since this situation can´t occur, this is not a scenario happening in reality
b) Is not correct. The test case is objectively wrong, since under these conditions no bonus is paid because the agreed target was not reached
c) Is not correct. There was no agreement on targets, it is impossible to reach the targets. Since this situation can´t occur, this is not a scenario happening in reality
d) Is correct. The test case describes the situation that the too short period of employment and the non-fulfilment of the agreed target leads to non-payment of the bonus. This situation can occur in practice but is missing in the decision table

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. Technical reviews are appropriate for technical documents such as a system architecture
b) Is correct. Adequate time for preparation is important, but people are working overtime and no adjustments are made for this new set of tasks
c) Is not correct. Gathering metrics from a review to evaluate participants is a factor that leads to failure, not success, because it destroys trust
d) Is not correct. A well-managed review meeting is important, but there is no reason to think the review meeting will not be well managed based on the information provided

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

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. This is the Glossary definition of quality assurance
b) Is correct. This is the Glossary definition of quality
c) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of security
d) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of cost of quality

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. 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

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. 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. 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 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 not correct. ‘Beware of the pesticide paradox’ is concerned with re-running the same tests and their fault-finding effectiveness decreasing
b) Is not correct. This testing principle is concerned with performing testing differently based on the context (e.g., games vs safety-critical)
c) Is not correct. This testing principle is concerned with the difference between a tested and fixed system and a validated system. No ‘errors’ does not mean the system is fit for use
d) Is correct. If clusters of defects are identified (areas of the system containing more defects than average), then testing effort should be focused on these areas

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Definition of feature according to glossary
b) Is correct. From glossary
c) Is not correct. Definition of functionality suitability according to glossary
d) Is not correct. Like Definition of Decision table testing according to glossary

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. The facilitator or moderator runs the review meetings
b) Is not correct. This is not a role name for a formal review participant
c) Is not correct. The facilitator or moderator runs the review meetings
d) Is not correct. The facilitator or moderator runs the review meetings

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)