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. Analyzing a defect is part of debugging, not testing
b) Is correct. Creating test data is a test implementation task
c) Is not correct. While a tester may need to identify a test item’s version for results reporting purposes, assigning a test item’s version is part of configuration management
d) Is not correct. Writing a user story is not a testing activity and should be done by the product owner

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. 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. One too few (see the four correct partitions in the correct answer)
b) Is not correct. One too much (see the four correct partitions in the correct answer)
c) Is not correct. Two too few (see the four correct partitions in the correct answer)
d) Is correct. The 4 equivalence partitions correspond to the description in the question, i.e., at least one test case must be created for each equivalence partition:

1. Equivalence partition: 0 ≤ employment time ≤ 2
2. Equivalence partition: 2 < employment time < 5
3. Equivalence partition: 5 ≤ employment time ≤ 10
4. Equivalence partition: 10 < employment time

Explanation / Rationale

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

Explanation / Rationale

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

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. 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

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

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

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

Explanation / Rationale

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. ‘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

The change in behavior may be either functional or non-functional you need to run change-related tests, some of which are confirmation tests and others are regression tests.

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

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. 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

The complete decision table is shown below:

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. 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

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

Explanation / Rationale

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. ‘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. 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

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

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 test result is given in the short summary
b) Is correct. When testing different versions of software, identifying information is necessary
c) Is not correct. You are just writing the defect report; hence, the status is automatically open
d) Is not correct. This information is useful for the tester but does not need to be included in the defect report

Explanation / Rationale

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is 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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is 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

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

a) Is not correct. Testing does not identify the source of defects, debugging identifies the source of defects
b) Is correct. Dynamic testing can show failures that are caused by defects in the software. Debugging eliminates the defects, which are the source of failures
c) Is not correct. Testing does not remove faults, but debugging removes faults, which is synonyms for defects, that may cause the failures
d) Is not correct. Dynamic testing does not directly prevent the causes of failures (defects) but detects the presence of defects