ISTQB CTFL-2018 Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 2

A test condition is an item or event of a component or system that can be verified by one or more test cases. A test condition can be derived from various sources of information, such as requirements, specifications, design documents, use cases, user stories, etc. A test condition can also be based on various aspects of a component or system, such as functionality, usability, performance, reliability, security, etc.

The other statements are not true about test conditions because they describe different concepts related to testing. For example:

B: The grouping of a composite set of test cases which, when tested as a whole, reveal a positive or negative result: This statement describes a test suite, which is a collection of test cases that are intended to be executed together to achieve a specific test objective or goal.

C: A testable component derived from business requirements: This statement describes a test basis, which is the source of information or data that provides the basis for designing and executing test cases.

D: Applies to software testing only: This statement is false because test conditions can apply to any type of testing, not just software testing. Test conditions can also be used for testing hardware, systems, processes, etc.

You can find more information about test conditions in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.1.

A role of a formal review is B. Moderator. A formal review is a type of static technique that involves a structured process of examining code or other software artifacts by a team of reviewers who follow predefined roles and rules. A formal review has four main phases: planning, preparation, meeting, and follow-up. A formal review has five main roles: author (the person who created the code or other software artifact under review), moderator (the person who leads and facilitates the review process), reviewer (the person who examines the code or other software artifact under review and provides feedback), scribe (the person who records the issues and outcomes of the review meeting), and manager (the person who monitors and controls the review process). A moderator is a key role in a formal review because he or she is responsible for planning, organizing, conducting, and reporting the review activities and ensuring that the review objectives are met. A detailed explanation of formal reviews can be found in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], pages 35-37.

A potential infinite loop is a type of defect that can be typically identified using static analysis by tools1.Static analysis is a technique that examines the source code or other software artifacts without executing them, and can detect defects, vulnerabilities, code smells, and deviations from standards early in the development process1.Static analysis tools are software tools that automate the static analysis technique and provide various features and functionalities to support it1.Static analysis tools can identify a potential infinite loop by analyzing the control flow and data flow of the source code and checking for conditions or statements that may cause an endless repetition or iteration1.A potential infinite loop can cause serious problems in software performance, functionality, reliability, and security1. Therefore, a potential infinite loop is a type of defect that can be typically identified using static analysis by tools.

UAT stands for user acceptance testing, which is a type of testing that verifies that the software product meets the acceptance criteria and expectations of the end users or customers1.A UAT specification is a document that defines the scope, objectives, approach, and criteria for UAT1.Testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification at any time before UAT begins, as this can help to ensure that the UAT specification is clear, complete, consistent, testable, and aligned with the user requirements1.Testers can also provide feedback and suggestions to improve the UAT specification and avoid potential issues or conflicts during UAT execution1. Therefore, testers should be involved in reviewing a UAT specification at any time before UAT begins.

Having the company's independent test team design and execute the tests would achieve the highest level of testing independence for a project's test level, because it would reduce the bias and influence of the developers or other stakeholders who are involved in the software development1.An independent test team can provide a different perspective and focus on testing activities without being affected by development pressures or deadlines1. The other options would not achieve the highest level of testing independence for a project's test level.Option A is not a good option, because training developers to design good tests for the test team to execute would still introduce some bias and influence from the developers' point of view1.Option C is not a good option, because minimizing contact between testers and developers during test design to avoid bias would reduce the communication and collaboration that are essential for effective testing and defect resolution1.Option D is not a good option, because outsourcing test design and execution to a different company would introduce some risks and challenges such as contractual issues, cultural differences, or loss of control over quality

Frequency 0, 1, 5, 6; Duration 0, 1, 30, 60, 61 is the correct test set of valid and invalid boundary values applying 2-value boundary value analysis1.Boundary value analysis is a technique that tests the values at and near the boundaries of an input domain or output range1.A 2-value boundary value analysis tests two values for each boundary: one valid value and one invalid value1. For Frequency, the valid boundaries are 1 and 5, so the test set should include one valid value (1 or 5) and one invalid value (0 or 6) for each boundary. For Duration, the valid boundaries are 1 and 60, so the test set should include one valid value (1 or 60) and one invalid value (0 or 61) for each boundary. The other options are incorrect test sets of valid and invalid boundary values applying 2-value boundary value analysis. Option A only includes valid values for each boundary, but not invalid values. Option B includes invalid values that are not adjacent to the boundaries (59 seconds and 60 minutes 1 second). Option D includes more than two values for each boundary (0, 1, 2 for Frequency; 0, 1, 30 for Duration).

They should be involved in reviewing requirements or user stories as soon as drafts are available is the option that represents good testing practice for testers, irrespective of the software lifecycle model used, because it allows testers to provide early feedback, identify potential defects, and clarify test objectives and scope1.Early involvement of testers in reviewing requirements or user stories can improve the quality and testability of the software and reduce the cost and effort of testing1. The other options do not represent good testing practice for testers, irrespective of the software lifecycle model used.Option A is not a good option, because they should start test analysis as early as possible, not when the corresponding development level is complete, to avoid delays and inefficiencies in testing1.Option C is not a good option, because they should ensure that different test objectives apply to each test level, not the same test objectives, to avoid redundancy and gaps in testing1.Option D is not a good option, because they should minimize the ratio of development levels to test levels to reduce project costs, but rather balance the development and test levels according to the project needs and risks1.

Error, fault, failure is the option that describes the causal chain in the correct sequence1.The causal chain is a model that explains how defects are introduced and manifested in software1.An error is a human action or decision that produces an incorrect result1.A fault is a defect in the software caused by an error1.A failure is an incorrect behaviour of the software caused by a fault1. The other options do not describe the causal chain in the correct sequence. Option B uses synonyms for error (mistake), fault (bug), and failure (defect), but does not follow the correct order. Option C uses synonyms for error (mistake) and fault (failure), but does not follow the correct order and confuses fault with failure. Option D uses synonyms for fault (bug) and error (error), but does not follow the correct order and confuses failure with error.

b & c are debugging activities, because they involve locating the cause of failure and fixing the defect in the software . Debugging is the process of finding and removing the causes of software failures . The other options are not debugging activities, but rather testing activities. Option A is a testing activity, because it involves identifying a failure in the software by comparing the expected and actual results . Option D is a testing activity, because it involves checking the fix has resolved the failure by re-testing the software .