Pass the ISTQB Foundation Level ISTQB-CTFL Questions and answers with Dumpstech

A test case is a set of input values, execution preconditions, expected results and execution postconditions, developed for a particular objective or test condition. A test case is a sequence of actions for test execution that can be followed by a tester or a test automation tool. A test case is specified during the test implementation activity, which is the activity that prepares the testware needed for test execution. A test case does not include actual results, as these are obtained during test execution and compared with the expected results. A test case does not describe items or events to test, as these are derived from the test basis during the test analysis activity. A test case is not derived during the test design activity, as this is the activity that specifies the test conditions or objectives that need to be tested. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 3, page 23-24; Chapter 4, page 34.

This answer is correct because equivalence partitioning is a test design technique that divides the input domain of a system or component into partitions of equivalent data, such that each partition is expected to produce the same output or behavior. Equivalence partitioning aims to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. In this case, the input domain of the TAS can be divided into four partitions based on the bonus rules: less than 50k€, between 50k€ and 80k€, between 80k€ and 120k€, and more than 120k€. The test cases in the answer belong to the same partition, which is between 80k€ and 120k€, and they are expected to produce the same output, which is a bonus of 15%. References: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.3.2.1

A decision table is a technique that shows combinations of inputs and/or stimuli (causes) with their associated outputs and/or actions (effects). A decision table consists of four quadrants: conditions (inputs), actions (outputs), condition entries (values) and action entries (results). The following statements about decision tables are true:

II. Test cases derived from decision tables can be used for component tests. Decision tables can be used to test components that have multiple inputs and outputs that depend on logical combinations of conditions. Decision tables can help cover all possible combinations or scenarios in a systematic way.

III. Several test cases can be selected for each column of the decision table. A column of a decision table represents a unique combination of condition entries and action entries. Several test cases can be selected for each column by varying other input values or expected results that are not part of the decision table. The following statements about decision tables are false:

I. Generally, decision tables are generated for low risk test items. Decision tables are not related to risk level, but rather to complexity level. Decision tables are generated for test items that have complex logic or multiple conditions and actions that need to be tested.

IV. The conditions in the decision table represent negative tests generally. The conditions in the decision table represent both positive and negative tests, depending on whether they are valid or invalid inputs for the test item. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 4, page 42-43.

The choice of a software development lifecycle (SDLC) model is primarily influenced by the type of product being developed. Different products and project requirements may demand different SDLC models to address specific challenges and needs efficiently. For instance, a complex, safety-critical product might best be served by a Waterfall model due to its structured nature and phase dependencies, while a more iterative and incremental model might be suited for projects requiring frequent feedback and changes.

The requirement specifies that a bonus should be paid if the total amount of sales (TAS) made during the year is 300,000€ or more. The software incorrectly implements this requirement with "IF (TAS = 300,000)" instead of "IF (TAS >= 300,000)". Using boundary value analysis (BVA), which is a common technique in software testing, the three test cases provided (TC1 = 299,999, TC2 = 300,000, and TC3 = 300,001) cover the critical boundary values around the condition.

TC1 tests just below the boundary (299,999),

TC2 tests exactly at the boundary (300,000),

TC3 tests just above the boundary (300,001).

Since the software incorrectly checks for TAS equal to 300,000, only TC2 will fail because the condition is exactly met and highlights the incorrect implementation of the decision logic.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

Equivalence partitioning (EP) divides input values into classes where test cases represent all possible values of each partition. The partitions in this scenario are:

≤7 (too cold → W)

8-21 (standstill → X)

22-29 (ideal → Y)

≥30 (too hot → Z)

Option C ({7,10,25,29}) covers all partitions by selecting representative values:

7 → Too cold (W)

10 → Standstill (X)

25 → Ideal (Y)

29 → Upper boundary of ideal (Y)

Other options do not cover all partitions adequately.

 Static testing is a form of testing that does not involve executing the software or system under test. It includes activities such as reviews, inspections, walkthroughs, and analysis of documents, code, and models. Static testing can find defects early in the development process, before they become more expensive and difficult to fix in later stages. Static testing can also improve the quality of the software or system by preventing defects from being introduced in the first place. Static testing can complement dynamic testing, which involves executing the software or system under test and checking the results against expected outcomes. Dynamic testing can find defects that static testing may miss, such as performance, usability, or integration issues. However, dynamic testing alone is not sufficient to ensure quality, as it may not cover all possible scenarios, inputs, or paths. Therefore, a test manager who decides to skip static testing is making a wrong decision, as he or she is ignoring the benefits of static testing and relying solely on dynamic testing, which may not be effective or efficient enough to find and prevent defects. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus, Version 4.0, 2018, Section 2.1.1, page 14; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 4.0, 2018, page 36; ISTQB CTFL 4.0 - Sample Exam - Answers, Version 1.1, 2023, Question 3, page 9.

Checklist-based testing involves using checklists that contain items, such as potential test conditions, that should be tested. These checklists are often based on insights into what is important to the user, potential areas where software might fail, and specific aspects that need to be tested. It provides a structured yet flexible approach to testing, ensuring key areas are covered while allowing testers to use their experience and understanding of the system. Checklist-based testing is not limited to non-functional testing but can be applied to various types of testing, including functional testing.

This answer is correct because shift-left in testing is an approach that aims to perform testing activities as early as possible in the software development lifecycle, in order to find and fix defects faster and cheaper, and to improve the quality of the software product. Continuous integration is a practice that supports shift-left in testing, as it involves integrating and testing the software components frequently, usually several times a day, using automated tools and processes. Continuous integration can reduce the time between the introduction of a defect and its detection, thereby reducing the cost to fix it and the risk of accumulating defects that could affect the functionality or performance of the software product. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.1.1.3, Section 3.2.1.3