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

a) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of condition coverage
b) Is not correct. Decision coverage is a higher level of coverage and the two terms are not defined as synonyms in the Glossary
c) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of statement coverage
d) Is correct. This is the Glossary definition of coverage as applied to decisions

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Static testing does not involve execution of the test object
b) Is not correct. Some static tests involve the use of a tool, especially static analysis, but reviews (such as the activity described here) do not necessarily involve the use of a tool
c) Is not correct. The review activity described here is part of a static test, but defects found in static tests are usually cheaper than those found in dynamic testing
d) Is correct. Static testing does not involve execution of the test object

Explanation / Rationale

Considering the scenario:

1. ‘testing is based on interface specifications’ – the test basis for integration testing includes interface specifications (along with communication protocol specification), while these are not included for any of the other test levels
2. ‘testing is focused on finding failures in communication’ - failures in the communication between tested components is included as a typical failure for integration testing, but failures in communication is not included for any of the other test levels
3. ‘the test approach uses both functional and structural test types’ - functional and structural test types are both included as possible approaches for integration testing, and would also be appropriate for any of the other test levels, although they are only otherwise explicitly mentioned in the syllabus for system testing

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. 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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. Exploratory testing is a form of experience-based testing, which benefits from the skills and experience of the tester
b) b) Is not correct. Exploratory testing is useful to complement formal testing techniques
c) Is not correct. In session-based test management, exploratory testing is conducted within a defined time-box, and the tester uses a test charter containing test objectives to guide the testing
d) Is not correct. Exploratory testing can incorporate the use of other black-box, white-box, and experience-based techniques referenced in this syllabus

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 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

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 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

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

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

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. 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. 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. Regression testing does not check successful implementation of corrections and confirmation testing does not check for side effects
b) Is not correct. The statement about confirmation testing should be about regression testing
c) Is correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
d) Is not correct. Testing new functionality is not regression testing

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

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 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. The benefits are not when creating regressions tests, more in executing them
b) Is not correct. This is done by configuration management tools
c) Is not correct. This needs specialized tools
d) Is correct. Reduction in repetitive manual work (e.g., running regression tests, environment set up/tear down tasks, re-entering the same test data, and checking against coding standards), thus saving time

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

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. 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

Considering the potential inconsistencies:

• 6-10 – If librarians should get system responses within 5 seconds, it is NOT inconsistent for borrowers to get system responses within 3 seconds.
• 6-15 - If librarians should get system responses within 5 seconds, it is inconsistent for all users to get system responses within 3 seconds.
• 7-12 – If borrowers can borrow a maximum of 3 books at one time it is NOT inconsistent for them to also reserve books (if they are on-loan).
• 9-11 – If a borrower can be fined for failing to return a book within 3 weeks it is inconsistent for them to also be allowed to borrow a book at no cost for a maximum of 4 weeks – as the length of valid loans are different.

Of the potential inconsistencies, 6-15 and 9-11 are valid inconsistencies.

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. 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

a) Is correct. If the expected security features are not supported by the system architecture, then the system could be seriously flawed. As the system being produced is the problem here, it is a product risk
b) Is not correct. If the developers run over budget, or run out of time, that is a problem with the running of the project – it is a project risk
c) Is not correct. If the test cases do not provide full coverage of the requirements, this means the testing may not fulfil the requirements of the test plan – it is a project risk
d) Is not correct. If the test environment is not ready, this means the testing may not be done, or it may have to be done on a different environment and it is impacting how the project is run – it is a project risk

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is 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. 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 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 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

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

This question is looking for bad application of product risk analysis.

a) Is not correct. As we are told security flaws have a particularly high impact, their risk level will be higher, and thus we have prioritized the security testing ahead of some other testing. Thus, product risk analysis has influenced the testing properly.
b) Is correct. As less defects than expected have been found in the network module, the perceived risk in this area should be lower, and so less testing should be focused on this area, NOT additional testing. Thus, product risk analysis has NOT CORRECTLY influenced the testing in this situation
c) Is not correct. Because the users had problems with the user interface of the previous system, there is now high awareness of the risk associated with the user interface, which has resulted in additional usability testing being planned. Thus, product risk analysis has properly influenced the thoroughness and scope of testing
d) Is not correct. As the time needed to load web pages has been identified as crucial to the success of the new website, the performance of the website should be considered a risk, and the employment of an expert in performance testing helps to mitigate this risk. Thus, product risk analysis has properly influenced the testing

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While impact analysis is useful during maintenance testing it is not necessary for confirmation testing since confirmation testing is on the intended effects of a bug fix or other change
b) Is not correct. Confirmation and regression testing are two separate activities, and confirmation testing is not part of system design
c) Is correct. Impact analysis can be used to select regression tests for maintenance testing
d) Is not correct. Confirmation testing is not part of impact analysis, though confirmation testing will typically happen during maintenance testing

Explanation / Rationale

The 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

The correct pairings of test activities and test tools are:

1. Performance measurement and dynamic analysis – (b) Dynamic analysis tools
2. Test execution and logging – (a) Code coverage tools
3. Management of testing and testware – (d) Defect management tools
4. Test design – (c) Test data preparation tools

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