Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Although the description of regression testing is largely correct, the description of confirmation testing (which should be testing a defect has been fixed) is not correct
b) Is correct. The descriptions of both confirmation and regression testing match the intent of those in the syllabus
c) Is not correct. Although the description of regression testing is largely correct, the description of confirmation testing (re-running all previously run tests to get the same results) is not correct, as the purpose of confirmation testing is to check that tests that previously failed now pass (the fix worked)
d) Is not correct. Although the description of confirmation testing is largely correct, the description of regression testing (re-running tests that previously failed) is not correct (this is a more detailed description of confirmation testing)

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

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 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

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

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. 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. 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

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

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 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. 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. During planning it is decided whether checklists are used. The preparation of the checklists is not part of the planning. In addition, the reviewers are neither involved in the planning, nor responsible for the creation of the checklists
b) Is not correct. During issue communication, any potential defects that have been identified in the individual review are communicated. The completion of checklists by the reviewers already takes place, if at all, during individual review
c) Is not correct. During review session, the reviewers communicate any potential defects of the work product that they did identify during the individual review. Defect reports are only created during the fixing and reporting activity
d) Is correct. Initiating the review (“Kick-off”) involves distributing the work product and other materials, like checklists

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. 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. Testing is context dependent, regardless of it being manual or automated (principle #6), but does not result in detecting a decreasing number of faults as described above
b) Is not correct. Exhaustive testing is impossible, regardless of the amount of effort put into testing (principle #2)
c) Is correct. Principle #5 says “If the same tests are repeated over and over again, eventually these tests no longer find any new defects. To detect new defects, existing tests and test data may need changing, and new tests may need to be written.” Automated regression testing of the same test cases will not bring new findings
d) Is not correct. ”Defect cluster together” (principle #4). A small number of modules usually contain most of the defects, but this does not mean that fewer and fewer defects will be found

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

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. 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. 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. 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

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. 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 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. 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. 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

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. 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

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

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 information has been defined earlier in the test project
b) Is not correct. This information is included in a test report: information on what occurred during a test period
c) Is not correct. This information is included in a test report:

• Status of testing and product quality with respect to the exit criteria or definition of done
• Metrics of defects, test cases, test coverage, activity progress, and resource consumption

d) Is not correct. This information is included in a test report: Information and metrics to support recommendations and decisions about future actions, such as an assessment of defects remaining, the economic benefit of continued testing, outstanding risks, and the level of confidence in the tested software

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. Testing does not identify the source of defects, debugging identifies the source of defects
b) Is correct. Dynamic testing can show failures that are caused by defects in the software. Debugging eliminates the defects, which are the source of failures
c) Is not correct. Testing does not remove faults, but debugging removes faults, which is synonyms for defects, that may cause the failures
d) Is not correct. Dynamic testing does not directly prevent the causes of failures (defects) but detects the presence of defects

Explanation / Rationale

a) Is not correct. While scope is a topic addressed in a test plan, the implementation of a risk-based testing strategy on this project is the approach, so this topic should be addressed in that section
b) Is correct. Approach is a topic addressed in a test plan and the implementation of a risk-based testing strategy on this project is the approach
c) Is not correct. While metrics for test monitoring and control is a topic addressed in a test plan, the implementation of a risk-based testing strategy on this project is the approach, so this topic should be addressed in that section
d) Is not correct. Configuration management is not a topic addressed in a test plan

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 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

Each transition must be traversed at least once. To do so, the first test can cover the happy path, a successful purchase, the next test cancels, or timeout from waiting for pumping, the next test cancels, or timeout from waiting for fuel type, and the last test the insertion of an invalid credit card. While the order is immaterial, fewer than four tests fail to cover one of the transitions inbound to waiting for customer or violates the rules about where a test starts or ends. More than four tests include tests that re-traverse already-covered transitions.

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

There is at least one test for each column in the decision table. However, column one requires two tests, one where the account is invalid and another where the account is valid, but the password is invalid, so the minimum number of tests is four.

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