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

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

During iteration planning, testers provide input on risk analysis, testability, and the feasibility of test automation. Participating in risk analysis (B) helps identify areas needing more extensive testing.

(A) is incorrect because the test strategy is usually set at a higher level (project or release level).

(C) is incorrect as release planning is broader than iteration planning.

(D) is incorrect since writing user stories is mainly the responsibility of the product owner, though testers contribute to defining acceptance criteria.

Risk-based test prioritization ensures testing efforts are aligned with business needs and software risks.

The minimum number of test cases needed to cover every unique sequence of up to 3 states/2 transitions starting in the “Start” state and ending in the “End” state is 4. This is because there are 4 unique sequences of up to 3 states/2 transitions starting in the “Start” state and ending in the “End” state:

Start -> Bet -> End

Start -> Deal -> End

Start -> 1st Deal -> End

Start -> 2nd Deal -> End References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents.

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.

A valid criticism of this report is that the version of the application is missing. The version of the application is an important piece of information that should be included in a defect report, as it helps to identify which release or build of the software product contains the defect. The version of the application can also help to reproduce and debug the defect, as different versions may have different behaviors or features. The other options are not valid criticisms of this report. The priority, the correction description and the developer name are not missing, but rather not applicable for this report. The priority is a measure of how urgently a defect needs to be fixed, which can be assigned by the project manager or the defect tracking system, not by the tester who reports the defect. The correction description and the developer name are information that are added after the defect has been resolved, not when it has been reported. There is no link to the applicable requirement (traceability) is not a valid criticism of this report, because traceability is not a mandatory attribute of a defect report, but rather an optional one. Traceability is a relationship between two or more entities (such as requirements, test cases, defects, etc.) that shows how they are related or dependent on each other. Traceability can help to verify that the requirements are met by the test cases and defects, but it is not essential for reporting a defect. The description is not highlighting the source of the problem is not a valid criticism of this report, because highlighting the source of the problem is not a responsibility of the tester who reports the defect, but rather of the developer who fixes the defect. The description should provide enough information to describe what happened when the defect occurred, such as input values, expected results, actual results, error messages, screenshots, etc., but it does not need to explain why or how it happened. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 140.

The statement "Early and frequent feedback helps to avoid requirements misunderstanding" is true. Early feedback from stakeholders, through reviews and other static testing techniques, helps clarify requirements and ensures that any misunderstandings are addressed promptly. This practice aligns with Agile principles and contributes to developing software that meets user needs more accurately.

 The V-model is a software development life cycle model that defines four test levels that correspond to four development phases: component (unit) testing with component design, integration testing with architectural design, system testing with system requirements, and acceptance testing with user requirements. The V-model emphasizes the importance of verifying and validating each phase of development with a corresponding level of testing, and ensuring that the test objectives, test basis, and test artifacts are aligned and consistent across the test levels. Therefore, an organization that wants to follow the V-model cannot do away with integration testing, as it would break the symmetry and completeness of the V-model, and compromise the quality and reliability of the software or system under test. Integration testing is a test level that aims to test the interactions and interfaces between components or subsystems, and to detect any defects or inconsistencies that may arise from the integration of different parts of the software or system. Integration testing is essential for ensuring the functionality, performance, and compatibility of the software or system as a whole, and for identifying and resolving any integration issues early in the development process. Skipping integration testing would increase the risk of finding serious defects later in the test process, or worse, in the production environment, which would be more costly and difficult to fix, and could damage the reputation and credibility of the organization. Therefore, the correct answer is D.

The other options are incorrect because:

A. It is not allowed as organizations can decide on the test levels to do depending on the context of the system under test. While it is true that the choice and scope of test levels may vary depending on the context of the system under test, such as the size, complexity, criticality, and risk level of the system, the organization cannot simply ignore or skip a test level that is defined and required by the chosen software development life cycle model. The organization must follow the principles and guidelines of the software development life cycle model, and ensure that the test levels are consistent and coherent with the development phases. If the organization wants to have more flexibility and adaptability in choosing the test levels, it should consider using a different software development life cycle model, such as an agile or iterative model, that allows for more dynamic and incremental testing approaches.

B. It is not allowed because integration testing is not an important test level and can be dispensed with. This statement is false and misleading, as integration testing is a very important test level that cannot be dispensed with. Integration testing is vital for testing the interactions and interfaces between components or subsystems, and for ensuring the functionality, performance, and compatibility of the software or system as a whole. Integration testing can reveal defects or inconsistencies that may not be detected by component (unit) testing alone, such as interface errors, data flow errors, integration logic errors, or performance degradation. Integration testing can also help to verify and validate the architectural design and the integration strategy of the software or system, and to ensure that the software or system meets the specified and expected quality attributes, such as reliability, usability, security, and maintainability. Integration testing can also provide feedback and confidence to the developers and stakeholders about the progress and quality of the software or system development. Therefore, integration testing is a crucial and indispensable test level that should not be skipped or omitted.

C. It is not allowed because integration testing is a very important test level and ignoring it means definite poor product quality. This statement is partially true, as integration testing is a very important test level that should not be ignored, and skipping it could result in poor product quality. However, this statement is too strong and absolute, as it implies that integration testing is the only factor that determines the product quality, and that ignoring it would guarantee a poor product quality. This is not necessarily the case, as there may be other factors that affect the product quality, such as the quality of the requirements, design, code, and other test levels, the effectiveness and efficiency of the test techniques and tools, the competence and experience of the developers and testers, the availability and adequacy of the resources and environment, the management and communication of the project, and the expectations and satisfaction of the customers and users. Therefore, while integration testing is a very important test level that should not be skipped, it is not the only test level that matters, and skipping it does not necessarily mean definite poor product quality, but rather a higher risk and likelihood of poor product quality.

References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 4.0, 2018, Section 2.3, pages 16-18; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, pages 38-39; ISTQB CTFL 4.0 - Sample Exam - Answers, Version 1.1, 2023, Question 104, page 36.

 The following should be included in a test status report: total number of open and closed defects, actual effort spent, and number of executed, failed, and blocked tests. A test status report is a document that provides information on the results and status of testing activities for a given period or phase. A test status report should include information that is relevant, accurate, and timely for the intended audience and purpose. Some of the information that should be included in a test status report are: total number of open and closed defects, which can indicate the defect trend and defect density of the software product; actual effort spent, which can indicate the productivity and efficiency of the testing process; number of executed, failed, and blocked tests, which can indicate the test progress and test coverage of the software product. The following should not be included in a test status report: estimation details, defect reports, and impact analysis. Estimation details are not part of a test status report, but rather part of a test plan or a test estimation document. Estimation details provide information on the expected time, resources, and costs for testing activities, not on the actual results or status of testing activities. Defect reports are not part of a test status report, but rather separate documents that provide detailed information on individual defects found during testing. Defect reports include information such as defect description, defect severity, defect priority, defect status, defect resolution, etc. Defect reports can be referenced or summarized in a test status report, but not included in full. Impact analysis is not part of a test status report, but rather part of a risk assessment or prioritization process. Impact analysis provides information on the potential effects or consequences of a change or a defect on the software product or project. Impact analysis can be used to evaluate the amount or scope of testing to be performed, but not to report the results or status of testing activities. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 141.