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. 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

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

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 correct. Impact analysis may be used to identify those areas of the system that will be affected by the fix, and so the extent of the impact (e.g., necessary regression testing) can be used when deciding if the change is worthwhile
b) Is not correct. Although testing migrated data is part of maintenance testing (see conversion testing), impact analysis does not identify how this is done
c) Is not correct. Impact analysis shows which parts of a system are affected by a change, so it can show the difference between different hot fixes in terms of the impact on the system, however it does not give any indication of the value of the changes to the user
d) Is not correct. Impact analysis shows which parts of a system are affected by a change; it cannot provide an indication of the effectiveness of test cases

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Risk is determined by considering a combination of the likelihood of problem situations and the harm that may result from them but cannot be calculated by adding these together (the probability would be in the range 0 to 1 and the harm could be in dollars)
b) Is not correct. Risk is determined by considering a combination of a likelihood and an impact. This definition only considers likelihood and chance (both forms of probability) with no consideration of the impact (or harm)
c) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
d) Is not correct. Risk is determined by considering a combination of a likelihood and an impact. This definition only considers hazards and losses (a hazard is a bad event, like a risk, while loss is a form of impact) with no consideration of the likelihood (or probability)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. 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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is 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

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

a) Is correct. Test management tools support the activities associated with test manager including metrics
b) Is not correct. Static code analysis metrics would have to do with the code only, not testing as a whole
c) Is not correct. These tools report on test basis coverage and code coverage only, not testing as a whole
d) Is not correct. Model-Based testing tools focus on one specific area, not testing as a whole

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. Exploratory testing is often carried out when timescales are short, so making in-depth investigations of the background of the test object is unlikely
b) Is correct. Glossary definition
c) Is not correct. Based on the Glossary definition of session-based testing, but with test execution replaced by test analysis
d) Is not correct. Glossary definition of experience-based testing

Explanation / Rationale

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

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

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 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. Based on definition of equivalence partition
b) Is correct. Based on definition from Glossary
c) Is not correct. Based on Glossary definition of testware
d) Is not correct. Based on definition of test oracle

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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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

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. 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 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 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

Traceability assists with:

• Selecting regression tests in terms of analyzing the impact of changes (1D)
• Evaluating completeness of test execution which makes testing auditable (2B)
• Identifying which user stories have open defect reports which improves understandability of test status reports to include status of test basis items (3A)
• Evaluating whether the number of tests for each requirement is consistent with the level of product risk which provides information to assess test process quality (i.e., alignment of test effort with risk) (4C)

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. error guessing is not a usability technique for guessing how users may fail to interact with the test object
b) Is not correct. Although a tester who used to be a developer may use their personal experience to help them when performing error guessing, the technique is not based on prior knowledge of development
c) Is correct. The basic concept behind error guessing is that the tester tries to guess what mistakes may have been made by the developer and what defects may be in the test object based on past-experience (and sometimes checklists)
d) Is not correct. Duplicating the development task has several flaws that make it impractical, such as the requirement for the tester to have equivalent skills to the developer and the time involved in performing the development. It is not error guessing

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 communicate 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

Glossary defines the following tests as:

• Test suite: “A set of test scripts or test procedures to be executed in a specific test run.” (1A)
• Test case: “A set of preconditions, inputs, actions (where applicable), expected results and post conditions, developed based on test conditions” (2C)
• Test script: “A sequence of instructions for the execution of a test” (3B)
• Test charter: “Documentation of test activities in session-based exploratory testing” (4D)

Thus:
a) Is correct
b) Is not 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 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 correct. Defects found early are often much cheaper to remove than defects detected later in the lifecycle
b) Is not correct. Dynamic testing still has its challenging because they find other types of defects
c) Is not correct. This is dynamic testing
d) Is not correct. Static testing is important for safety-critical computer systems

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 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

Given the annotated state model below:

The options achieve the following transition coverage:
a) Is not correct: OFF (2) WAIT (1) OFF (2) WAIT (3) TRICKLE (5) CHARGE (9) HIGH (10) CHARGE (7) LOW = 7 transitions (out of 10)
b) Is not correct: WAIT (3) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (1) OFF (2) WAIT (3) TRICKLE (5) CHARGE (7) LOW (8) CHARGE = 7 transitions (out of 10)
c) Is not correct: HIGH (10) CHARGE (7) LOW (8) CHARGE (6) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (3) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (3) TRICKLE = 6 transitions (out of 10)
d) Is correct: WAIT (3) TRICKLE (5) CHARGE (9) HIGH (10) CHARGE (6) TRICKLE (4) WAIT (1) OFF (2) WAIT = 8 transitions (out of 10)

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