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. 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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. 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

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

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. The statement is true. Achieving 100% decision coverage guarantees 100% statement coverage
b) Is not correct. The statement is false because achieving 100 % statement coverage does not in any case mean that the decision coverage is 100%
c) Is not correct. The statement is false because we can only do statements about 100% values
d) Is not correct. The statement is false

Explanation / Rationale

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. The two methods are used sequentially, not simultaneously
b) Is correct. The primary sources of information come from the experienced testers, who are the experts. The consultant’s industry averages augment the original estimate from published metrics
c) Is not correct. The expert-based approach is the primary approach, augmented by a metrics-based approach
d) Is not correct. We do not know if this project is following Agile methods, and burndown charts do not come from external consultants

Explanation / Rationale

The correct pairings of examples to entry and exit criteria are:

• Entry criteria

o (3) The trading performance test environment has been designed, set-up and verified – example of the need for a test environment to be ready before testing can begin
o (5) The autopilot design specifications have been reviewed and reworked – example of the need for the test basis to be available before testing can begin
o (6) The tax rate calculation component has passed unit testing – example of the need for a test object to have met the exit criteria for a prior level of testing before testing can begin

• Exit criteria

o (1) The original testing budget of $30,000 plus contingency of $7,000 has been spent – example of spending the testing budget being a signal to stop testing
o (2) 96% of planned tests for the drawing package have been executed and the remaining tests are now out of scope – example of all the planned tests being run being a signal to stop testing (normally used alongside the exit criteria on outstanding defects remaining)
o (4) Current status is no outstanding critical defects and two high-priority ones – example of the number of outstanding defects achieving a planned limit being a signal to stop testing (normally used alongside the exit criteria on planned tests being run).

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

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

a) Is not correct. This is an objective for a pilot, but you have achieved it because you understand the tool much better due to the pilot
b) Is not correct. This is an objective for a pilot, but you have achieved it because you have tailoring your testing processes
c) Is not correct. This is an objective for a pilot, but you have achieved it because you have standardized an approach to using the tool and its associated work products
d) Is correct. Assessing the benefits and configuring the metrics collection are the two objectives missing from this list

Explanation / Rationale

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. The management decides about performing the review
b) Is not correct. The moderator, not the review leader should ensure the effective running of review meetings
c) Is not correct. The author fixes the work product under review
d) Is not correct. The manager monitors ongoing cost-effectiveness

Explanation / Rationale

This question is looking for bad application of product risk analysis.

a) Is not correct. As we are told security flaws have a particularly high impact, their risk level will be higher, and thus we have prioritized the security testing ahead of some other testing. Thus, product risk analysis has influenced the testing properly.
b) Is correct. As less defects than expected have been found in the network module, the perceived risk in this area should be lower, and so less testing should be focused on this area, NOT additional testing. Thus, product risk analysis has NOT CORRECTLY influenced the testing in this situation
c) Is not correct. Because the users had problems with the user interface of the previous system, there is now high awareness of the risk associated with the user interface, which has resulted in additional usability testing being planned. Thus, product risk analysis has properly influenced the thoroughness and scope of testing
d) Is not correct. As the time needed to load web pages has been identified as crucial to the success of the new website, the performance of the website should be considered a risk, and the employment of an expert in performance testing helps to mitigate this risk. Thus, product risk analysis has properly influenced the testing

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)

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. 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 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

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

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. If the expected security features are not supported by the system architecture, then the system could be seriously flawed. As the system being produced is the problem here, it is a product risk
b) Is not correct. If the developers run over budget, or run out of time, that is a problem with the running of the project – it is a project risk
c) Is not correct. If the test cases do not provide full coverage of the requirements, this means the testing may not fulfil the requirements of the test plan – it is a project risk
d) Is not correct. If the test environment is not ready, this means the testing may not be done, or it may have to be done on a different environment and it is impacting how the project is run – it is a project risk

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 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 correct. One of the typical tasks of a test manager
b) Is not correct. One of the typical tasks of a tester
c) Is not correct. One of the typical tasks of a tester
d) Is not correct. One of the typical tasks of a tester

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. ‘Collection of metrics’ belongs to the main activity “Fixing and Reporting”
b) Is not correct. ‘Answer any question.’ belongs to the main activity “Initiate Review”
c) Is correct. The checking of entry criteria takes place in the planning of a formal review
d) Is not correct. The evaluation of the review findings against the exit criteria belongs to the main activity “Issue communication and analysis”

Explanation / Rationale

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is 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

The correct pairing of descriptions with the different categories of test techniques is:

• Black-box test techniques
Deviations from the requirements are checked (4) User stories are used as the test basis (5)
• White-box test techniques
Coverage is measured based on a selected structure of the test object (1) The processing within the test object is checked (2)
• Experience-based test techniques
Tests are based on defects’ likelihood and their distribution (3)

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Test case execution (e.g., number of test cases run/not run, and test cases passed/failed)
b) Is not correct. This metric can be measured, but its value is low. The number of testers does not give any information about the quality of the test object or test progress
c) Is not correct. the coverage of requirements by source code is not measured during test execution. At most, the TEST(!) coverage of the code or requirements is measured
d) Is not correct. This metric is part of test preparation and not test execution

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

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

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