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 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

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

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

Explanation / Rationale

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 correct. See reasons from incorrect answers
b) Is not correct. The “degree of tester’s independence” does not play a role in exit criteria
c) Is not correct. “Availability of test environment” is an entry criterion
d) Is not correct. “The Qualification of Tester” is not a typical exit criterion

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 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. This is a white-box test technique
b) Is not correct. This is a white-box test technique
c) Is not correct. This is an experience-based test technique
d) Is correct. Black-box test techniques are based on an analysis of the appropriate test basis (e.g., formal requirements documents, specifications, use cases, user stories)

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. 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. 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

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

Explanation / Rationale

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. 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

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

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

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

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. Reviews reduce, not increase, the total cost of quality
b) Is not correct. Increasing velocity is a sign of increasing development productivity overall, not just testing, so B only partially applies
c) Is correct. Velocity is a way of measuring productivity in Agile development
d) Is not correct. The benefit mentioned here has to do with increasing overall development team productivity

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

The possible mappings of points 1 to 4 can be justified as follows:

1. Approach 3 is analytical: Risk-based testing is an example of an analytical approach, where tests are designed and prioritized based on the level of risk
2. Approach 2 is standard-compliant: The control algorithms is checked against industry-specific standard of the energy saving regulation.
3. Approach 4 is consultative: This type of test strategy is driven primarily by the advice, guidance, or instructions of stakeholders, business domain experts, or technology experts, who may be outside the test team or outside the organization itself
4. Approach 1 is reactive: Exploratory testing is a common technique employed in reactive strategies, whereby the explorative testing is assigned to the experience-based testing category

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

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is correct. 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

For the input equivalence partitions given, the above used boundary value technique yields the following 8 coverage items:

10°C, 11°C, 15°C, 16°C, 19°C, 20°C, 22°C, 23°C.

Hence, the options have the following boundary value coverage:
a) Is not correct. 4 out of 8 (11, 20 ,22 and 23)
b) Is not correct. 3 out of 8 (15, 19 and 23)
c) Is correct. 5 out of 8 (10, 16, 19, 22 and 23)
d) Is not correct. 3 out of 8 (15, 19 and 22)

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is 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

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

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 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

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. 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. 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

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 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. 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

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. 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. This is the Glossary definition of quality assurance
b) Is correct. This is the Glossary definition of quality
c) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of security
d) Is not correct. This is the Glossary definition of cost of quality