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

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

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. 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

a) Is correct. This is an objective listed
b) Is not correct. This is debugging
c) Is not correct. This is an activity within the test execution group of activities within the test process
d) Is not correct. This is part of debugging

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 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

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. 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

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 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. 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. 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

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. One of the major objectives of testing
b) Is not correct. Validation of the project plan would be a project management activity
c) Is not correct. Contradiction to principle #2; complete/exhaustive testing is not possible
d) Is not correct. “Comparing actual results with expected results” is a test performing activity, but not a test objective

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. 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

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 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. 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. 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 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

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 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

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 correct. The metrics-based approach: estimating the testing effort based on metrics of former similar projects or based on typical values
b) Is not correct. This is expert-based approach: estimating the tasks based on estimates made by the owners of the tasks or by experts
c) Is not correct. This is expert-based approach: estimating the tasks based on estimates made by the responsible team of the tasks or by experts
d) Is not correct. This is expert-based approach: estimating the tasks based on estimates made by the owners of the tasks or by experts

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Structure-based, or white-box techniques are based on an analysis of the architecture, detailed design, internal structure, or the code of the test object
b) Is correct. Behavior-based, or black-box techniques are based on an analysis of the appropriate test basis (e.g., formal requirements documents, specifications, use cases, user stories, or business processes), which describe functional and non-functional behavior
c) Is not correct. Experience-based techniques leverage the experience of developers, testers, and users to determine what should be tested
d) Is not correct. Error guessing is a type of experience-based testing, which is not black-box

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

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 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

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. 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. Exploratory testing is not suitable to speed up tests, which are already specified. It is most useful when there are few or inappropriate specified requirements or significant time pressure on testing
b) Is not correct. The absence of a test charter, which may have been derived from the test analysis, is a poor precondition for the use of exploratory testing
c) Is correct. Exploratory tests should be performed by experienced testers with knowledge of similar applications and technologies
d) Is not correct. Explorative testing alone is not suitable to provide evidence that the test was very intensive, instead the evidence is provided in combination with other test methods

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

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. 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. Reviews should increase the quality of specifications, however the time required for development and testing should decrease
b) Is not correct. Detecting defects is generally easier earlier in the lifecycle
c) Is not correct. Reviews will result in fewer missed requirements and better communication between testers and developers, however this is not true for static analysis
d) Is correct. This is a benefit of static analysis

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. 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

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