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 complete decision table is shown below:

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. 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. 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

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. Percentage of test cases prepared is a common metric during test preparation while percentage of test cases passed, failed, not run, etc., are common during test execution
b) Is not correct. Defect reports are typically filed during test execution, based on failures found
c) Is not correct. Test environment preparation is part implementation and would generally be complete before test execution
d) Is not correct. Defects are typically reported during test execution, based on failures found, so the cost to find the next defect is available during test execution only

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 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

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. Both developers and testers gain from experience
b) Is correct. Developers are often more interested in designing and building solutions than in contemplating what might be wrong with those solutions
c) Is not correct. Both developers and testers should be able to communicate well
d) Is not correct. Testers shall focus on the quality, not on the quantity

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While enabling required tests to be identified in an early stage is a testing contribution to success, there is no indication in the question that the tester did so
b) Is not correct. Ensuring processes are carried out properly is part of quality assurance, not a testing contribution to success
c) Is correct. Reducing the risk of fundamental design defects is a testing contribution to success. Database structure is related to design, and performance problems can be a significant product risk
d) Is not correct. While reducing the risk of untestable functionality is a testing contribution to success, the tester here has not identified something untestable, but rather something that would result in performance tests failing

Explanation / Rationale

Considering the attributes:

• There is a role of a scribe – specified for walkthroughs, technical reviews, and inspections; thus, the reviews being performed cannot be informal reviews
• The purpose is to detect potential defects – the purpose of detecting potential defects is specified for all types of review.
• The review meeting is led by the author – this is not allowed for inspections and is typically not the author for technical reviews, but is part of walkthroughs, and allowed for informal reviews
• Reviewers find potential issues by individual review - all types of reviews can include individual review (even informal reviews)
• A review report is produced - all types of reviews can produce a review report, although it would be less likely for an informal review

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. R4 is dependent on R2, so R2 should be tested before R4
b) Is not correct. R4 is dependent on R2, R5 and R6, so R5 and R6 should be tested before R4
c) Is correct. The tests are specified in a sequence that takes the dependencies into account
d) Is not correct. R2 is dependent on R3, so R3 should be tested before R2

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Incremental development involves establishing requirements, designing, building, and testing a system in pieces
b) Is not correct. This is a sequential model
c) Is not correct. This describes the waterfall model
d) Is not correct. Testing alone is not an increment/additional step in the development

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 correct
b) Is not correct. The evaluation of the test automation skills and training, mentoring and coaching needs of the testers who will use the tool should have been performed as part of the tool selection activity
c) Is not correct. The decision on whether the tool provides the required functionality and does not duplicate existing tools should have been performed as part of the tool selection activity
d) Is not correct. The evaluation of the tool vendor in terms of the training and other support they provide should have been performed as part of the tool selection activity

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

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. 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. 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

Performance testing is a test type, not a test level. Component testing focuses on defects in separately testable modules or objects, integration testing on defects in interfaces and interactions, system testing on defects in the whole test object, and acceptance testing is not typically focused on identifying defects.

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. 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. 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 test cases should be scheduled in priority order, but the schedule must also take account of the dependencies.

The two highest priority test cases (TC1 and TC3) are both dependent on TC4, so the first three test cases should be scheduled as either TC4 – TC1 – TC3 or TC4 – TC3 – TC1 (we have no way to discriminate between TC1 and TC3).
Next, we need to consider the remaining medium priority test case, TC6. TC6 is dependent on TC5, but TC5 is dependent on TC2, so the next two three cases must be scheduled as
TC2 – TC5 – TC6.
This means there are two possible optimal schedules:

• TC4 – TC1 – TC3 – TC2 – TC5 – TC6 or
• TC4 – TC3 – TC1 – TC2 – TC5 – TC6

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

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. System testing does not test interfaces between components and interactions between different parts of the system; this is a target of integration tests
b) Is correct. Examples of work products that can be used as a test basis for component testing include detailed design, code, data model, component specifications. Examples of work products for system testing include system and software requirement specifications (functional and non-functional) use cases
c) Is not correct. Component testing does not ONLY focus on functional characteristics
d) Is not correct. Component tests are also executed by developers, whereas system testing typically is the responsibility of (independent) testers

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. 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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. 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. 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

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