ISTQB-CTFL Exam Dumps - ISTQB Foundation Level Questions and Answers

Component testing (also known as unit testing or module testing) is a level of testing that focuses on verifying the functionality and quality of individual software components (such as modules, classes, functions, methods, etc.). Component testing mainly tests interfaces and interaction between components, as well as internal logic and data structures of the components. Component testing may be applied using a test-first approach (such as test-driven development or behavior-driven development), where tests are written before the code is implemented. Component testing does not identify defects in modules and classes, as this is a result of component testing, not an objective. Simulators and stubs may be required for component testing, as they can simulate or replace missing or incomplete components or external systems that are needed for testing. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 19.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:Theplanning phase of the review process(C) includes defining thereview’s purpose, scope, and exit criteriato ensure alignment.Option Ais part of the defect management phase,Bhappens during individual preparation, andDtakes place in the review meeting.

 Functional testing is an example of black-box dynamic testing. Black-box testing (also known as specification-based testing) is a type of testing that does not consider the internal structure or implementation of the system under test, but rather its external behavior or functionality. Dynamic testing is a type of testing that involves executing the system under test with various inputs and observing its outputs. Functional testing is a type of black-box dynamic testing that verifies that the system under test performs its intended functions according to its requirements or specifications. Functional testing can be performed at various levels and scopes depending on the objectives and criteria of testing. The other options are not examples of black-box dynamic testing. Code inspection is an example of white-box static testing. White-box testing (also known as structure-based testing) is a type of testing that considers the internal structure or implementation of the system under test. Static testing is a type of testing that does not involve executing the system under test, but rather analyzing it for defects, errors, or violations of standards. Code inspection is a type of white-box static testing that involves examining the source code of the system under test for quality, readability, maintainability, etc. Checking memory leaks for a program by executing it is an example of white-box dynamic testing. Memory leaks are defects that occur when a program fails to release memory that it has allocated but no longer needs. Checking memory leaks for a program by executing it requires knowledge and access to the internal structure or implementation of the program, such as memory allocation and deallocation mechanisms, pointers, references, etc. Coverage analysis is an example of white-box static testing. Coverage analysis is a technique that measures how much of the code or structure of the system under test has been exercised by a test suite. Coverage analysis requires knowledge and access to the internal structure or implementation of the system under test, such as statements, branches, paths, conditions, etc. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 7.

The features of the test object to be tested and those excluded from the testing represent information that is usually included in a test plan and, in the given test plan, it is more likely to be specified within “Test Scope” rather than in the other two sectionsmentioned. The test scope defines the boundaries and limitations of the testing activities, such as the test items, the features to be tested, the features not to be tested, the test objectives, the test environment, the test resources, the test assumptions, the test risks, etc. The test scope helps to establish a common understanding of what is included and excluded from the testing, and to avoid ambiguity, confusion, or misunderstanding among the stakeholders. The other two sections, “Testing Communication” and “Stakeholders”, are also important parts of a test plan, but they do not directly address the features of the test object. The testing communication describes the methods, frequency, and responsibilities for the communication and reporting of the testing progress, status, issues, and results. The stakeholders identify the roles and responsibilities of the people involved in or affected by the testing activities, such as the test manager, the test team, the project manager, the developers, the customers, the users, etc. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.1, Test Planning1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test Plan, Test Scope2

Traceability is the ability to trace 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. Traceability can provide various benefits for the testing process, such as improving the test coverage, the test quality, the test efficiency, and the test communication. However, not all the statements given are true about the value of maintaining traceability between the test basis and test work products. The statement that is not true is option C, which says that test objectives should be the same for all test levels, although the number of tests designed at various levels can vary significantly. This statement is false, because test objectives are the goals or the purposes of testing, which can vary depending on the test level, the test type, the test technique, the test environment, the test stakeholder, etc. Test objectives can be defined in terms of the test basis, the test coverage, the test quality, the test risk, the test cost, the test time, etc. Test objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, and they should be aligned with the project objectives and the quality characteristics. Test objectives should not be the same for all test levels, as different test levels have different focuses, scopes, and perspectives of testing, such as component testing, integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing. The other statements are true about the value of maintaining traceability between the test basis and test work products, such as:

Traceability can be useful for assessing the impact of a change to a test basis item on the corresponding tests: This statement is true, because traceability can help to identify which tests are affected by a change in the test basis, such as a new requirement, a modified design, a revised risk, etc., and to determine the necessary actions to update, re-execute, or re-evaluate the tests. Traceability can also help to estimate the effort, the cost, and the time needed to implement the change and to verify its impact on the software system.

Traceability can be useful for determining how many test basis items are covered by the corresponding tests: This statement is true, because traceability can help to measure the test coverage, which is the degree to which the test basis is exercised by the test cases. Traceability can help to identify which test basis items are covered, partially covered, or not covered by the tests, and to evaluate the adequacy, the completeness, and the effectiveness of the testing process. Traceability can also help to identify the gaps, the overlaps, or the redundancies in the test coverage, and to prioritize, optimize, or improve the test cases.

Traceability can be useful to support the needs required by the auditing of testing: This statement is true, because traceability can help to provide evidence, documentation, and justification for the testing activities, results, and outcomes. Traceability can help to demonstrate that the testing process follows the standards, the regulations, the policies, and the best practices that are applicable to the software system, the project, or the organization. Traceability can also help to verify that the testing process meets the expectations, the needs, and the satisfaction of the users and the stakeholders. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 1.2.2, Testing Policies, Strategies, and Test Approaches1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.1, Test Planning1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.2, Test Monitoring and Control1

ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.1.3, Test Analysis and Design1

ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Traceability, Test Basis, Test Artifact, Test Objective, Test Level, Test Coverage, Test Quality, Test Risk, Test Cost, Test Time2

Involving testers only during the testing phase is incorrect as per the ISTQB CTFL syllabus. Effective involvement of testers is crucial throughout the entire software development lifecycle (SDLC). This includes early stages such as requirement analysis and design, which allows testers to understand the design decisions and detect defects early. Early involvement helps in better understanding the project and ensures that quality is built into the product from the beginning. Furthermore, the ISTQB syllabus emphasizes the importance of testers contributing to all activities in the SDLC, including design discussions, to enhance defect detection and prevention.

References:ISTQB CTFL Syllabus, Section 2.1.1, "The Influence of Development Models on Testing" and Section 1.1.1, "Test Objectives."

 The thought process of the software company is incorrect, because it assumes that each artifact can be reviewed using only one review method, and that the review method depends solely on the criticality of the artifact. This is a simplistic and rigid approach that does not consider the benefits and limitations of different review methods, the context and purpose of the review, and the feedback and improvement opportunities that can be gained from multiple reviews. According to the CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, the selection of review methods should be based on several factors, such as the type and level of detail of the artifact, the availability and competence of the reviewers, the time and budget constraints, the expected defects and risks, and the desired outcomes and quality criteria. Moreover, the same artifact can be reviewed using different review methods at different stages of the development lifecycle, to ensure thatthe artifact meets the changing requirements, standards, and expectations of the stakeholders. For example, a requirement specification can be reviewed using an informal review method, such as a walkthrough, to get an initial feedback from the users and developers, and then using a formal review method, such as an inspection, to verify the completeness, correctness, and consistency of the specification. Therefore, the software company should adopt a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to selecting and applying review methods for different artifacts, rather than following a fixed and arbitrary rule. References = CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 3.2.1, page 31-32; Section 3.2.2, page 33-34; Section 3.2.3, page 35-36.

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0, the life cycle of a defect typically follows a sequence from its discovery to its closure. In the provided figure, it starts with S0 (New), moves to S1 (Assigned), then to S2 (Resolved), followed by S3 (Verified). If the defect is not fixed, it can be Re-opened (S5) and goes back for verification (S3). Once verified, it is Closed (S4). References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Section 1.4.3, Page 17.

A test status report is a document that provides a snapshot of the testing activities and their progress during a particular period. It should include information about any impediments encountered during the test execution and the actions taken to resolve them, which helps stakeholders understand the challenges and how they were addressed​​ .

Option B describes an activity related to test completion rather than ongoing status reporting. Option C is incorrect because the structure and contents of the report may vary based on the audience's needs. Option D, while important, is not the primary purpose of a test status report, which focuses more on the current status and impediments.

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