Certified Tester Foundation Level - ISTQB Foundation Sample Quiz 3

The ‘absence-of-defects fallacy’ is concerned with the idea that ensuring correctness in accordance with the requirements (i.e., verifying the absence of implementation defects) does not guarantee user satisfaction with the system. To address this it is also necessary to validate that the system meets users' needs and expectations, fulfills business objectives, and outperforms competing systems.

Given the following description of test analysis:
To identify the features that require testing, the test basis is analyzed and defined as test conditions, which are then prioritized along with related risks. The systematic identification of test conditions as coverage items often involves using test techniques both during test analysis and as part of the test design activity.
From the above description, it can be seen that test techniques are often used in the test analysis and test design activities. Boundary value analysis and equivalence partitioning are test techniques.

Considering each of the listed test activities and their output testware:
A. Test analysis - prioritized test conditions (4) (e.g., acceptance criteria), and defect reports for defects identified in the test basis
B. Test design - prioritized test cases, test charters, coverage items (1), test data requirements, and test environment requirements
C. Test implementation - test procedures, automated test scripts, test suites, test data, test execution schedule (3), and test environment elements such as stubs, drivers, simulators, and service virtualizations
D. Test completion - test completion report, documented lessons learned, action items for improvement, and change requests (2) (as product backlog items)

Which of the following is an example of a test-first approach to development?

Considering each of the listed example defects:
i. Two different parts of the design specification disagree due to the complexity of the design – this is an example of a specification defect, which includes inconsistencies, ambiguities, contradictions, omissions, inaccuracies, and duplications, which can most easily be found by static testing
ii. A response time is too long and so makes users lose patience – this is an example of a response time defect, which can only be detected in practice by executing the program and measuring the response time, which can most easily be found by dynamic testing
iii. A path in the code cannot be reached during execution - this is an example of a coding defect, which includes variables with undefined values, undeclared variables, duplicated or unreachable code, and excessive code complexity, which can most easily be found by static testing
iv. A variable is declared but never subsequently used in the program - this is an example of a coding defect, which includes variables with undefined values, undeclared variables, duplicated or unreachable code, and excessive code complexity, which can most easily be found by static testing
v. The amount of memory needed by the program to generate a report is too high – this is an example of a performance defect, which can only be detected in practice by executing the program and measuring the memory used, which can most easily be found by dynamic testing

Considering each of the listed review types:
1. Technical review - This type of review is performed by technically qualified reviewers and led by a moderator. The objectives are to gain consensus and make decisions on technical problems while also evaluating quality and building confidence in the work product, generating new ideas, motivating and enabling authors to improve, and detecting anomalies
2. Informal review - The main objective is to detect anomalies. The process is not defined and does not require formal documented output
3. Inspection - This is the most formal review type, and it follows the complete generic review process. The primary objective is to find the most anomalies, and other objectives include evaluating quality and building confidence in the work product, motivating and enabling authors to improve, and collecting metrics that can be used to enhance the software development life cycle (SDLC), including the inspection process. The author cannot act as the review leader or scribe
4. Walkthrough - Led by the author, this type of review serves various objectives such as evaluating quality and building confidence in the work product, educating reviewers, gaining consensus, generating new ideas, motivating and enabling authors to improve, and detecting anomalies. Reviewers might perform an individual review before the walkthrough, but this is not mandatory

A. Includes objectives such as gaining consensus, generating new ideas, and motivating authors to improve (A)
B. The main objective is detecting potential defects and it generates no formal documented output (D)
C. The main objective is detecting potential defects and it requires metrics collection to support process improvement (C)
D. Includes objectives such as educating reviewers, gaining consensus, generating new ideas and detecting potential defects (B)

The equivalence partitions are: {…, 99, 100}, {101, 102, …, 198, 199}, {200, 201, …}.
Thus, there are 4 boundary values, which are: 100, 101, 199 and 200.

In 2-value BVA, for each boundary value there are two coverage items (the boundary value and its closest neighbor belonging to the adjacent partition). As the closest neighbors are also boundary values in the adjacent partition, then there are just four coverage items.

The following three transitions:

“REQUESTING -> CONFIRMED”
“WAITING LIST -> CONFIRMED”
“WAITING LIST -> END”

cannot appear in the same test case, which suggests that at least three test cases are required. All the other transitions can appear in combination with one or more of these three transitions, so we need a minimum of three test cases. In fact, only three sequences are possible:
TC1: START (Room request)  REQUESTING (Available)  CONFIRMED (Pay) => END
TC2: START (Room request)  REQUESTING (Not available)  WAITING LIST (Available) => CONFIRMED (Pay)  END
TC3: START (Room request)  REQUESTING (Not available)  WAITING LIST (Cancel) => END

In branch testing the coverage items are branches, which are represented by the edges of a control flow graph. There are 8 edges in the control flow graph.

How many coverage items do you need to test?

From the graph we have:
A(4)=6 and A(3)=8 (the last two gray boxes).
From the formula we obtain:
E(5) = (3*A(4) + A(3)) / 4 = (3*6+8) / 4 = 26 / 4 = 6.5 person-days

We want to run test cases according to their priorities, but we also need to consider the dependencies.
If we only consider priorities, we want to first run TC 5 and TC 7 (highest priority), then TC 1, TC 3, and TC 4, and finally TC 2 and TC 6 (lowest priority).
However, in order to run TC 7, we need to first run TC 4.
In order to run TC 5, we need to run TC 4 and TC 2, but TC 2 is blocked by TC 1, which should be run prior to TC 2.
So, in order to run priority 1 test cases as early as possible, the first five test cases should be: TC 4 - TC 7 - TC 1 - TC 2 - TC 5.
Next, we need to run TC 3, because it has higher priority than TC 6.
Thus the full schedule will be TC 4 – TC 7 – TC 1 – TC 2 – TC 5 – TC 3 – TC 6.
So, the sixth test case will be TC 3.