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 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

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

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

Each transition must be traversed at least once. To do so, the first test can cover the happy path, a successful purchase, the next test cancels, or timeout from waiting for pumping, the next test cancels, or timeout from waiting for fuel type, and the last test the insertion of an invalid credit card. While the order is immaterial, fewer than four tests fail to cover one of the transitions inbound to waiting for customer or violates the rules about where a test starts or ends. More than four tests include tests that re-traverse already-covered transitions.

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

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

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 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

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

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

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

The following partitions can be identified:

1. <= 50, boundary value 50
2. 51 – 55 boundary values 51, 55
3. 56 – 60 boundary values 56, 60
4. >=61 boundary value 61

Boundary value according to glossary V.3.2: A minimum or maximum value of an ordered equivalence partition.

Thus:
a) Is not correct. Does not include all necessary boundary values, but it includes additional values: 0, 49, and 59, which are not boundary values in this equivalence partition
b) Is not correct. Does not include all necessary boundary values. 51 and 55 are missing
c) Is not correct. Does not include necessary boundary values but it includes additional values: 49, 62, and 54, which are not boundary values in this equivalence partition
d) Is correct. includes all necessary boundary values

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

Explanation / Rationale

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. 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 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. 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. Requirement management tools are not particularly suitable for developers
b) Is not correct. Configuration management tools are not particularly suitable for developers
c) Is correct. Static analysis tools are especially suitable for developers
d) Is not correct. Performance testing tools are not better suited for developers than for testers

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While the given statement is true, the explanation is not. The relationship between statement and decision coverage is misrepresented
b) Is correct. Since any test case will cause the outcome of the “if” statement to be either TRUE or FALSE, by definition we achieved 50% decision coverage
c) Is not correct. A single test case can give more than 25% decision coverage, this means according to the statement above always 50 % decision coverage
d) Is not correct. The statement is specific and always true, because each test case achieves 50 % decision coverage

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. This is maintainability testing, not maintenance testing
b) Is not correct. This is a trigger for maintenance testing: Operational tests of the new environment as well as of the changed software
c) Is not correct. This is the trigger for maintenance testing: testing restore/retrieve procedures after archiving for long retention periods
d) Is not correct. This is the trigger for maintenance testing: Reactive modification of a delivered software product to correct emergency defects that have caused actual failures

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Estimates may be updated as more information becomes available, but estimates are needed to assist with planning before the testing starts
b) Is not correct. In the expert-based approach, the experts need to be experts in testing, not in using the test object
c) Is correct. Test Managers, who will be leading testers doing the testing, are considered experts in their respective areas and suitable for estimating the necessary resources needed
d) Is not correct. While it is useful to know the testing costs from previous projects, a more sophisticated approach is needed than simply taking an average of past projects (the new project may not be like the previous projects, e.g., it may be far larger or far smaller than previous projects)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. This is an example of a mistake made by the developer
b) Is not correct. This is an example of a defect (something wrong in the code that may cause a failure)
c) Is correct. This is a deviation from the expected functionality - a cruise control system should not be affected by the radio
d) Is not correct. This is an example of a defect (something wrong in a specification that may cause a failure if subsequently implemented)

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

The level of risk will be determined by the likelihood of an adverse event happening and the impact (the harm) from that event.

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

Explanation / Rationale

The correct pairing of test activities and tasks is:

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. 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 equivalence partitions can be identified:

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. 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

The possible mappings of points 1 to 4 can be justified as follows:

1. Approach 3 is analytical: Risk-based testing is an example of an analytical approach, where tests are designed and prioritized based on the level of risk
2. Approach 2 is standard-compliant: The control algorithms is checked against industry-specific standard of the energy saving regulation.
3. Approach 4 is consultative: This type of test strategy is driven primarily by the advice, guidance, or instructions of stakeholders, business domain experts, or technology experts, who may be outside the test team or outside the organization itself
4. Approach 1 is reactive: Exploratory testing is a common technique employed in reactive strategies, whereby the explorative testing is assigned to the experience-based testing category

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