Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. We want to check that Special users have the rights of Regular users, so we need to test access rights for a Special user, not for a Regular user
b) Is not correct. We want to check that Special users have the rights of Regular users, so we need to test access rights for a Special user, not for a Regular user
c) Is not correct. There is no floor 5 described in the acceptance criteria. The test cases should not extend the scope of the user story. But even if we would like to perform negative testing, this test is not directly related to AC3
d) Is correct. This way we can check if a Special user can access floors which are accessible to a Regular user

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Testing quadrants group test levels and test types separately according to several criteria. They do not represent any combinations of test levels and test types and they are not related to any location within a software development lifecycle. Both test levels and test types are treated separately in the testing quadrants model
b) Is not correct. Testing quadrants group test levels and test types according to several criteria. They do not describe the degree of granularity of individual test types performed at each test level. Such a model, regarding the test levels, is called the test pyramid
c) Is not correct. The statement is wrong, because in general any test type can be performed at any test level
d) Is correct. The testing quadrants group test levels, test types, activities, test techniques and work products in Agile software development. In this model, tests can be business facing or technology facing. Tests can support the team (i.e., guide the development) or critique the product (i.e., measure its behavior against expectations). The combination of these two viewpoints determines the four quadrants

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. To ensure successful reviews, it's important to secure management's support for the review process, however that does not mean that they should participate as reviewers
b) Is correct. To ensure successful reviews, it's important to break the work product into parts that are small enough to be reviewed in a reasonable timescale to prevent reviewers from losing focus during individual review or review meetings
c) Is not correct. To ensure successful reviews, it's important to clearly define objectives and measurable exit criteria, without evaluating participants
d) Is not correct. To ensure successful reviews, it's important to break down the review into smaller chunks to prevent reviewers from losing focus during individual review or review meetings. So you should not plan to cover one document per review

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. It is impossible to prove that there are no defects anymore in the system under test. See testing principle 1
b) Is not correct. See testing principle 7
c) Is correct. Testing finds defects and failures which reduces the level of risk and at the same time gives more confidence in the quality level of the test object
d) Is not correct. It is impossible to test all combinations of inputs (see testing principle 2)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Test-Driven Development (TDD) is a well-known example of a test-first approach to development
b) Is not correct. Coverage-Driven Development is not a correct example of a test-first approach to development
c) Is not correct. Quality-Driven Development is not a correct example of a test-first approach to development
d) Is not correct. Feature-Driven Development is not an example of a test-first approach to development, but is, instead, an agile software development methodology based around delivering features (as opposed to user stories in Scrum)

Explanation / Rationale

There are two equivalence partitions that are not yet covered, which correspond to “student discount” and “pensioner discount”.
a) Is not correct. CY – BY = 64, so these inputs correspond to the already covered “no discount” partition
b) Is correct. CY – BY = 65, so these inputs correspond to a partition that is not yet covered (“pensioner discount”)
c) Is not correct. CY – BY = –65, so these inputs correspond to the already covered “error message” partition
d) Is not correct. CY – BY = 18, so these inputs correspond to the already covered “no discount” partition
e) Is correct. CY – BY = 0, so these inputs correspond to a partition that is not yet covered (“student discount”)

Explanation / Rationale

There are 12 boundary values for the final result values: 0, 50, 51, 60, 61, 70, 71, 80, 81, 90, 91, and 100.
The test cases cover six of them (TC1 – 91, TC2 – 50, TC3 – 81, TC4 – 60, TC5 – 70 and TC7 – 51).
Therefore, the test cases cover 6/12 = 50%.
Thus:
a) Is correct
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The test pyramid model does not provide information about test priorities
b) Is correct. The test pyramid model shows that different tests have different levels of granularity
c) Is not correct. The test pyramid model is independent of coverage criteria
d) Is not correct. Test pyramid model does not show any relations between different tests

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. It is often possible to use dynamic testing to cause a test object to fail in ways that could never be achieved by the users, such as by using fault injection. However, if the failure can never occur with real end users, then identifying it is not especially valuable as testing is ultimately aimed at improving the work product for the end users. Spending time testing for failures that cannot occur with real users is not an efficient use of a tester’s time
b) Is not correct. Static testing in the form of static analysis is used by developers to identify defects in their program code earlier than can be achieved through dynamic testing. Note, however, that static testing (and static analysis) is used to detect defects, not failures, which are found by dynamic testing. Thus it is the use of the term ‘failures’ that makes this an incorrect option
c) Is not correct. Static analysis directly detects anomalies in code, which may be defects, and this is normally for the developer, not the customer. The provision of evidence for release by the use of static analysis of elements that provide no output is nonsense
d) Is correct. Reviews are a form of static testing that can be applied from the very start of the software development lifecycle and are used to find defects that can be removed before subsequent development activities waste effort on faulty requirements. If the defects are not detected and removed early on, then when the defect is found derived work products, such as the design and code, will need to be changed as they were based on faulty requirements

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. ‘The capability of generating test cases without access to the test basis’ is not possible. The generation of test cases by either testers or tools requires access to the test basis
b) Is not correct. ‘The achievement of increased coverage through more objective assessment’ is not a direct benefit of test automation. Test automation will provide more objective assessment of coverage, however that objective assessment will not increase the coverage. Only by using the results of the coverage to write further test cases can the coverage possibly be increased
c) Is not correct. ‘The increase in test execution times available with higher processing power’ is a contradictory statement as higher processing power would normally reduce execution times, and increased execution times are not a benefit as the testing would take longer
d) Is correct. The prevention of human errors through greater consistency and repeatability is a benefit of test automation as test automation cannot suffer from human errors. For instance, it means that tests are consistently derived from requirements, test data is created in a systematic manner, and tests are executed by a tool in the same order with the same frequency

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. One of the purposes of retrospectives is to identify potential process improvements, which, if put into practice, should result in the quality of future outputs of the development process (test objects) being higher. So, this is likely to occur as a result of a retrospective
b) Is not correct. A benefit of retrospectives for testing includes increased test efficiency through process improvements. So, this is likely to occur as a result of a retrospective
c) Is correct. Participants at retrospectives typically include testers, developers, architects, product owners, and business analysts, but end users are rarely invited or attend these meetings – and they are also unlikely to receive any reports from these meetings. So, it is very unlikely that they will learn and understand more about the development and test processes through retrospectives
d) Is not correct. A benefit of retrospectives for testing includes improved quality of testware (including automated test scripts) through joint reviews with developers. So, this is likely to occur as a result of a retrospective

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. When a system is retired, this can require testing of data migration, which is a form of maintenance testing
b) Is not correct. Regression testing verifies whether a fix accidentally affected the behavior of other parts of the code, but now we are talking about data migration to a new system
c) Is not correct. Component testing focuses on individual hardware or software components, not on data migration
d) Is not correct. Integration testing focuses on interactions between components and/or systems, not on data migration

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The root cause is the distraction that the programmer experienced while programming
b) Is not correct. Accepting invalid inputs is a 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. In all types of reviews there is more than one role, even in informal ones
b) Is correct. There are several activities during the formal review process
c) Is not correct. Documentation to be reviewed should be distributed as early as possible
d) Is not correct. Defects found during the review should be reported

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Collaborative user story writing means that all stakeholders create the user stories collaboratively, to obtain the shared vision
b) Is correct. Collaborative user story writing means that all stakeholders create the user stories collaboratively, to obtain the shared vision
c) Is not correct. Collaborative user story writing means that all stakeholders create the user stories collaboratively, to obtain the shared vision
d) Is not correct. This is the list of properties that each user story should have, not the description of the collaboration-based approach

Explanation / Rationale

We want to run test cases according to their priorities, but we also need to consider the dependencies.
If we only consider priorities, we want to first run TC 5 and TC 7 (highest priority), then TC 1, TC 3, and TC 4, and finally TC 2 and TC 6 (lowest priority).
However, in order to run TC 7, we need to first run TC 4.
In order to run TC 5, we need to run TC 4 and TC 2, but TC 2 is blocked by TC 1, which should be run prior to TC 2.
So, in order to run priority 1 test cases as early as possible, the first five test cases should be: TC 4 - TC 7 - TC 1 - TC 2 - TC 5.
Next, we need to run TC 3, because it has higher priority than TC 6.
Thus the full schedule will be TC 4 – TC 7 – TC 1 – TC 2 – TC 5 – TC 3 – TC 6.
So, the sixth test case will be TC 3.

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Retrospectives are more useful for identifying improvement opportunities and have little importance for clients
b) Is not correct. Business representatives are not giving feedback about the product itself. Therefore, there is no financial gain to the organization
c) Is correct. Regularly conducted retrospectives, when appropriate follow up activities occur, are critical to continual improvement of development and testing
d) Is not correct. Courage and respect are values of Extreme Programming and are not closely related to retrospectives

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 communicating 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 correct. The number of defects found is related to the test object quality
b) Is not correct. This is the measure of the test efficiency not the test object quality
c) Is not correct. The number of test cases executed does not tell us anything about the quality; test results might do
d) Is correct. defect density is related to the test object quality
e) Is not correct. Time to repair is a process metric. It does not tell us anything about the product quality

Explanation / Rationale

The ‘absence-of-defects fallacy’ is concerned with the idea that ensuring correctness in accordance with the requirements (i.e., verifying the absence of implementation defects) does not guarantee user satisfaction with the system. To address this it is also necessary to validate that the system meets users' needs and expectations, fulfills business objectives, and outperforms competing systems.
a) Is not correct. The ‘testing shows the presence, not the absence of defects’ principle explains that while testing can detect the existence of defects in the test object, it is not possible to demonstrate that there are no defects and, therefore, guarantee its correctness. Therefore, explaining that it is not possible for testing to show the absence of defects would partially address this principle, not the ‘absence-of-defects’ fallacy
b) Is correct. By supporting the end user to perform acceptance testing it should be possible to validate that the system meets users' needs and expectations
c) Is not correct. It is not possible to ensure that no implementation defects remain in the delivered system as the ‘testing shows the presence, not the absence of defects’ principle explains that while testing can detect the existence of defects in the test object, it is not possible to demonstrate that there are no defects and, therefore, guarantee its correctness
d) Is not correct. Modifying tests that cause no failures to ensure few defects remain is one way to address the ‘tests wear out’ principle. This principle is concerned with the idea that repeating identical tests on unaltered code is unlikely to uncover novel defects and therefore, modifying tests may be essential. This will not validate that the system meets users' needs and expectations

Explanation / Rationale

Considering:

• The test basis for acceptance testing is the user’s business needs (1D)
• Communication between components is tested during component integration testing (2B)
• Failures in logic can be found during component testing (3A)
• Business rules are the test basis for system testing (4C)

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

Explanation / Rationale

The domain for the password length has three equivalence partitions:

• passwords too short {0, 1, …, 4, 5}
• passwords OK {6, 7, …, 11, 12}
• passwords too long {13, 14, …}

To achieve full coverage for 3-value BVA we need to test the following values:

0, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14.

Since 2-value BVA is already covered, this means that we have already tested the passwords of length:

0, 5, 6, 12 and 13.

This means that the additional lengths that need to be covered to move from 2-value to 3-value are:

1, 4, 7, 11 and 14.

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Test automation does not introduce unknown regressions in production
b) Is correct. Wrong allocation of effort to maintain testware is a risk
c) Is not correct. Test tools must be selected so that they and their testware can be relied upon
d) Is not correct. The primary goal of test automation is to reduce manual testing. So, this is a benefit, not a risk

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Coverage is always defined as the percentage of the covered elements. Therefore, it cannot exceed 100%
b) Is correct. If the statements executed by T1 and T2 were disjoint, the coverage of the test suite {T1, T2} would be 105%, which is impossible (see answer a). Therefore, at least 5% of executable statements must have been executed by both T1 and T2
c) Is not correct. Statement coverage does not tell us anything about the number of non-executable statements in the code
d) Is not correct. Even if a test suite achieves full statement coverage, this does not imply achieving full branch coverage

Explanation / Rationale

Considering the attributes:

• Specified for walkthroughs, technical reviews, and inspections; thus, the reviews being performed cannot be informal reviews
• The purpose of evaluating quality is one of the most important objectives of a walkthrough
• This is not allowed for inspections and is typically not done in technical reviews. A moderator is needed in walkthroughs and is allowed for informal reviews
• All types of reviews can include individual preparation (even informal reviews)
• All types of reviews can produce a review report, although informal reviews do not require documentation

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Planning poker can estimate effort for a user story that is already written. It does not help in understanding what should be delivered
b) Is not correct. Reviews are not a collaborative user story writing practice
c) Is not correct. Iteration planning is a project-related practice, used to plan the work, not to understand what needs to be delivered
d) Is correct. Conversation explains how the software will be used and often allows the team to define meaningful acceptance criteria, thus obtaining a shared vision of what should be delivered

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Debugging is the process of finding, analyzing, and removing the causes of failures in a component or system
b) Is not correct. Testing is the process concerned with planning, preparation and evaluation of a component or system and related work products to determine that they satisfy specified requirements, to demonstrate that they are fit for purpose and to detect defects. It is not related to fixing causes of failures
c) Is not correct. Requirement elicitation is the process of gathering, capturing, and consolidating requirements from available sources. It is not related to fixing causes of failures
d) Is not correct. Defect management is the process of recognizing, recording, classifying, investigating, resolving, and disposing of defects. It is not related to fixing causes of failures

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. This test covers two acceptance criteria: one about editing the document and one about saving changes
b) Is not correct. Acceptance criteria cover the editor activities, not the content owner activities
c) Is not correct. Scheduling the edited content for publication may be a nice feature, but it is not covered by the acceptance criteria
d) Is not correct. Acceptance criteria state about reassigning from an editor to the content owner, not to another editor

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The combination (T, T, F) does not match any rule. This is an example of omission, not a contradiction
b) Is not correct. The combination (T, F, T) matches only one column, R2, so there is no contradiction
c) Is not correct. Both combinations (T, T, T) and (F, T, T) match only one column, R1, so there is no contradiction
d) Is correct. The combination (F, F, F) matches both R2 and R3, but R2 and R3 have different actions, so this shows a contradiction between R2 and R3.

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The fact that the requirement about the system’s performance comes directly from the client and that the performance is important from the business point of view (i.e., high priority) does not make these tests functional, because they do not check “what” the system does, but “how” (i.e., how fast the orders are processed)
b) Is correct. This is an example of performance testing, a type of non-functional testing
c) Is not correct. From the scenario we do not know if interacting with the user interface is a part of the test conditions. But even if we did, the main test objective of these tests is to check the performance, not the usability
d) Is not correct. We do not need to know the internal structure of the code to perform the performance testing. One can execute performance efficiency tests without structural knowledge

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Regression tests increase in number as the project progresses, as new regression tests are typically required as changes are made to the system. Similarly, the number of confirmation tests also typically increases as the project progresses as new confirmation tests are needed for each fix made to a system
b) Is not correct. It is the other way round. Confirmation tests are created and run when the test object is fixed, and regression tests are (ideally) run whenever the test object is enhanced (changed)
c) Is not correct. Confirmation testing verifies that a defect has been fixed correctly and so is concerned with testing changes to the test object. However, regression testing ensures that changes (including changes to the operational environment) do not have negative effects on unchanged software and so does not check that the operational environment remains unchanged
d) Is correct. Regression testing ensures that changes do not have negative effects on unchanged software. Confirmation testing verifies that a defect has been fixed – and so is concerned with changed code

Explanation / Rationale
a) Is not correct. Retrospectives are used to capture lessons learned and to improve the development and testing process, not to document the acceptance criteria
b) Is correct. This is the standard way to document acceptance criteria
c) Is not correct. Verbal communication does not allow to physically document the acceptance criteria as part of a user story (”card” aspect in the 3C’s model)
d) Is not correct. Acceptance criteria are related to a user story, not a test plan. Also, acceptance criteria are the conditions that have to be fulfilled to decide if the user story is complete. Risks are not such conditions

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Performing only black-box testing does not provide a measure of actual code coverage. White-box coverage measures provide an objective measurement of coverage and provide the necessary information to allow additional tests to be generated to increase this coverage, and subsequently increase confidence in the code
b) Is not correct. This statement is correct, but it has nothing to do with black-box testing
c) Is not correct. In general there are no subsumes relationships between white-box and black-box techniques
d) Is not correct. White-box techniques are used to design tests based on the test object itself, while black-box techniques are used to design tests based on the specification. Therefore, there is no relation between coverage items derived from these two types of techniques

Explanation / Rationale

Because TC1 and TC3 failed in Execution 1 (i.e., test (1) and test (3)), test (4) and test (6) are confirmation tests.
Because TC2 and TC3 failed in Execution 2 (i.e., tests (5) and (6)), test (8) and test (9) are also confirmation tests.
TC2 passed in Execution 1 (i.e., test (2)), so test (5) is a regression test.
TC1 passed in the Execution 2 (i.e., test (4)), so test (7) is also a regression test.
Thus:
a) Is not correct
b) Is correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Estimating the test effort is part of test planning
b) Is correct. This is an example of defining test conditions which is a part of test analysis
c) Is not correct. Using test techniques to derive coverage items is a part of test design
d) Is not correct. Reporting defects found during dynamic testing is a part of test execution

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The manager is responsible for deciding what needs to be reviewed and allocating resources, such as staff and time, for the review
b) Is correct. The moderator (or facilitator) is responsible for ensuring that the review meetings run effectively, including managing time, mediating discussions, and creating a safe environment where everyone can voice their opinions freely
c) Is not correct. The chairperson is not a recognized role in reviews
d) Is not correct. The review leader is responsible for overseeing the review process, such as selecting the review team members, scheduling review meetings, and ensuring that the review is completed successfully

Explanation / Rationale

According to the dependencies, SEARCH tests must be executed first, then VIEW tests, then ADD tests and, at the end, ORDER tests. Within each of these groups the order is determined by the priorities of the test cases.
So, TC1 must be executed first, then TC2, then TC4 followed by TC3, and then TC5 as the last one.
So, the ordering is: TC1, TC2, TC4, TC3, TC5.
Thus:
a) Is correct. TC3 will be the fourth test case executed
b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

Using the three-point estimation technique, the final estimate (E) is calculated as:

E = (a + 4*m + b) / 6,

where a is the most optimistic estimate, m is the most likely estimate, and b is the most pessimistic estimate.

Thus:
a) Is correct. In this case, the estimate for executing a single test case is:

E = (1h + 4*3h + 8h) / 6 = 3.5 hours

So, the total time needed for the tester to execute 4 test cases is:

3.5h * 4 = 14 hours

b) Is not correct
c) Is not correct
d) Is not correct

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Adding this information allows the developer to use the same input data, so it is more likely they will be able to reproduce the failure quickly and so identify the defect faster
b) Is not correct. Adding the value of Priority will not help in reproducing the defect itself
c) Is not correct. Although some of this information may be of value, adding the memory dumps and database snapshots after each step will be too much, because most of these artefacts will contain useless information for the developer, and make the report less readable. It will also require the developer to spend a lot of time analyzing this information, which will lengthen the repair process
d) Is not correct. The question was about helping the developer to reproduce the defect observed for a specific environment configuration

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Testers should review work products as soon as drafts are available to enable early testing as part of a shift-left approach. If they waited until the next development phase, then unnecessary development (and test) work could be started on unreviewed, flawed work products
b) Is correct. Testers should review work products as soon as drafts are available to enable early testing as part of a shift-left approach
c) Is not correct. Testers typically review work products that form the test basis as part of test analysis, not before test analysis and design
d) Is not correct. Testers should review work products as soon as drafts are available to enable early testing as part of a shift-left approach. Waiting until they are published means that any defects that could be found by tester review will be in the published document