ISTQB Updated ISTQB-CTFL Exam Questions and Answers by asiyah

Equivalence partitioning is a technique that divides the input data and output results of a software component into partitions of equivalent data. Each partition should contain data that is treated in the same way by the component. Equivalence partitioning can be used to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. Equivalence partitioning is suitable for testing the price computation, as it can identify different partitions based on the passenger type, the travelling type, the distance and the kind of transport. Equivalence partitioning is not statement coverage, which is a technique that measures how many executable statements in a source code are executed by a test suite. Statement coverage is not appropriate for testing the price computation, as it does not consider the input data or output results. Equivalence partitioning is not state transition testing, which is a technique that models how a system transitions from one state to another depending on events or conditions. State transition testing is not relevant for testing the price computation, as it does not involve any states or transitions. Equivalence partitioning is not use case testing, which is a technique that tests how users interact with a system to achieve a specific goal. Use case testing is not applicable for testing the price computation, as it does not focus on a single function or component. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 37-38.

In software testing, risks are categorized into product risks and project risks. Product risks are associated with the potential of a product to fail in meeting its quality criteria. Project risks are related to potential issues that could affect the project's ability to deliver a product.

[i] is a project risk because it concerns the availability and adequacy of hardware resources for performance testing.

[ii] is a product risk because it pertains to a security and functionality issue within the web application.

[iii] is a project risk because it involves the availability of necessary requirements documentation for the testing process.

[iv] is a product risk because it relates to the system's functionality and data integrity after a failure.

Thus, statement A correctly classifies [ii] and [iv] as product risks and [i] and [iii] as project risks​​.

Exploratory testing is an experience-based test technique in which testers dynamically design and execute tests based on their knowledge, intuition, and learning of the software system, without following predefined test scripts or test cases. Exploratory testing can be conducted following a session-based approach, which is a structured way of managing and measuring exploratory testing. In a session-based approach, the testers perform uninterrupted test sessions, usually lasting between 60 and 120 minutes, with a specific charter or goal, and document the issues detected, the test coverage achieved, and the time spent in session sheets. Session sheets are records of the test activities, results, and observations during a test session, which can be used for reporting, debriefing, and learning purposes. The other statements are false, because:

Exploratory testing is not a test technique in which testers explore the requirements specification to detect non testable requirements, but rather a test technique in which testers explore the software system to detect functional and non-functional defects, as well as to learn new information, risks, or opportunities. Non testable requirements are requirements that are ambiguous, incomplete, inconsistent, or not verifiable, which can affect the quality and effectiveness of the testing process. Non testable requirements can be detected by applying static testing techniques, such as reviews or inspections, to the requirements specification, before the software system is developed or tested.

Exploratory testing is not a test technique used by testers during informal code reviews to find defects by exploring the source code, but rather a test technique used by testers during dynamic testing to find defects by exploring the behavior and performance of the software system, without examining the source code. Informal code reviews are static testing techniques, in which the source code is analyzed by one or more reviewers, without following a formal process or using a checklist, to identify defects, violations, or improvements. Informal code reviews are usually performed by developers or peers, not by testers.

In exploratory testing, testers usually do not produce scripted tests and establish bidirectional traceability between these tests and the items of the test basis, but rather produce unscripted tests and adapt them based on the feedback and the findings of the testing process. Scripted tests are tests that are designed anddocumented in advance, with predefined inputs, outputs, and expected results, and are executed according to a test plan or a test procedure. Bidirectional traceability is the ability to trace both forward and backward the relationships between the items of the test basis, such as the requirements, the design, the risks, etc., and the test artifacts, such as the test cases, the test results, the defects, etc. Scripted tests and bidirectional traceability are usually associated with more formal and structured testing approaches, such as specification-based or structure-based test techniques, not with exploratory testing. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.3, Experience-based Test Design Techniques1

ISTQB® Glossary of TestingTerms v4.0, Exploratory Testing, Session-based Testing, Session Sheet, Non Testable Requirement, Static Testing, Informal Review, Dynamic Testing, Scripted Testing, Bidirectional Traceability2

To determine the optimal test execution schedule that minimizes the number of configuration switches and respects the dependencies, we start with the initial configuration, CONF1.

TC4: It has no dependencies and runs on CONF1 (initial configuration).

TC3: Depends on TC4 and runs on CONF1. Since TC4 is already executed, we can proceed with TC3.

TC2: Depends on TC4 and runs on CONF2. We switch to CONF2 after TC3.

TC1: No dependencies and runs on CONF2. Since we are already in CONF2, we can execute TC1 next.

TC5: Depends on TC1 and runs on CONF2. Since TC1 is already executed, we can proceed with TC5 without additional configuration switches.

By following this sequence (TC4, TC3, TC2, TC1, TC5), we respect the dependencies and minimize the number of configuration switches