Quiz CTFL4: BCS ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level 4.0

The tests at the bottom layer of the test pyramid run faster than the tests at the top layer of the
pyramid because they are more focused, isolated, and atomic. They usually test individual units or
components of the software system, such as classes, methods, or functions. They are also easier to
maintain and execute, as they have fewer dependencies and interactions with other parts of the
system. The tests at the top layer of the test pyramid, on the other hand, are slower because they
cover larger pieces of functionalities, such as user interfaces, workflows, or end-to-end scenarios.
They also have more dependencies and interactions with other systems, such as databases,
networks, or external services. They are more complex and costly to maintain and execute, as they
require more setup and teardown procedures, test data, and test environments. Reference: ISTQB
Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:
ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.2.1, Test Pyramid1
ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test Pyramid2

Test automation allows you to produce tests that are less subject to human errors, as they can
execute predefined test scripts or test cases with consistent inputs, outputs, and expected results.
Test automation can also reduce the manual effort and time required to execute repetitive or tedious
tests, such as regression tests, performance tests, or data-driven tests. Test automation does not
demonstrate the absence of defects, as it can only verify the expected behavior of the system under
test, not the unexpected or unknown behavior. Test automation does not avoid performing
exploratory testing, as exploratory testing is a valuable technique to discover new information, risks,
or defects that are not covered by automated tests. Test automation does not increase test process
efficiency by facilitating management of defects, as defect management is a separate activity that
involves reporting, tracking, analyzing, and resolving defects, which may or may not be related to
automated tests. Reference: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and
documents:
ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.3.1, Test Automation1
ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test Automation2

The support offered by a performance testing tool is often leveraged by testers to run load tests,
which are tests that simulate a large number of concurrent users or transactions on the system under
test, in order to measure its performance, reliability, and scalability. Performance testing tools can
help testers to generate realistic workloads, monitor system behavior, collect and analyze
performance metrics, and identify performance bottlenecks. The other statements are false,
because:
A test data preparation tool is a tool that helps testers to create, manage, and manipulate test data,
which are the inputs and outputs of test cases. Test data preparation tools are not directly related to
running automated regression test suites, which are test suites that verify that the system still works
as expected after changes or modifications. Regression test suites are usually executed by test
execution tools, which are tools that can automatically run test cases and compare actual results
with expected results.
A bug prediction tool is a tool that uses machine learning or statistical techniques to predict the
likelihood of defects in a software system, based on various factors such as code complexity, code
churn, code coverage, code smells, etc. Bug prediction tools are not used by testers to track the bugs
they found, which are the actual defects that have been detected and reported during testing. Bugs
are usually tracked by defect management tools, which are tools that help testers to record, monitor,
analyze, and resolve defects.
A continuous integration tool is a tool that enables the integration of code changes from multiple
developers into a shared repository, and the execution of automated builds and tests, in order to
ensure the quality and consistency of the software system. Continuous integration tools are not used
by testers to automatically generate test cases from a model, which are test cases that are derived
from a representation of the system under test, such as a state diagram, a decision table, a use case,
etc. Test cases can be automatically generated by test design tools, which are tools that support the
implementation and maintenance of test cases, based on test design specifications or test
models. Reference: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:
ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.4.1, Types of Test Tools
ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Performance Testing Tool, Test Data Preparation Tool, Bug
Prediction Tool, Continuous Integration Tool, Test Execution Tool, Defect Management Tool, Test
Design Tool

Exercising at least one of the decision outcomes for all decisions within the code, ensures achieving
full branch coverage, which is a test coverage criterion that requires that all branches in the control
flow of the code are executed at least once by the test cases. A branch is a basic block of code that
has a single entry point and a single exit point, and a decision is a point in the code where the control
flow can take more than one direction, such as an if-then-else statement, a switch-case statement, a
loop statement, etc. The decision outcomes are the possible paths that can be taken from a decision,
such as the then branch or the else branch, the case branch or the default branch, the loop body or
the loop exit, etc. The other statements are false, because:
The minimum number of test cases needed to achieve full branch coverage, is usually higher than
that needed to achieve full statement coverage, which is a test coverage criterion that requires that
all executable statements in the code are executed at least once by the test cases. This is because
branch coverage is a stronger criterion than statement coverage, as it implies statement coverage,
but not vice versa. For example, a single test case can achieve full statement coverage for an if-then-
else statement, but two test cases are needed to achieve full branch coverage, as both the then
branch and the else branch need to be exercised.
If full branch coverage has been achieved, then all unconditional branches within the code have not
necessarily been exercised, as unconditional branches are branches that do not depend on any
decision, and are always executed, such as a goto statement, a break statement, a return statement,
etc. Unconditional branches are not part of the branch coverage criterion, as they do not represent
different paths in the control flow of the code. However, they are part of the statement coverage
criterion, as they are executable statements in the code.
If full branch coverage has been achieved, then all combinations of conditions in a decision table
have not necessarily been exercised, as a decision table is a test design technique that represents the
logical relationships between multiple conditions and their corresponding actions, in a tabular
format. A decision table can have more combinations of conditions than the number of decision
outcomes in the code, as each condition can have two or more possible values, such as true or false,
yes or no, etc. For example, a decision table with four conditions can have 16 combinations of
conditions, but the corresponding code may have only two decision outcomes, such as pass or fail. To
exercise all combinations of conditions in a decision table, a stronger test coverage criterion is
needed, such as condition combination coverage, which requires that all possible combinations of
condition outcomes in the code are executed at least once by the test cases. Reference: ISTQB
Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:
ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.3.1, Test Coverage Criteria Based
on the Structure of the Software
ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Branch Coverage, Statement Coverage, Branch, Decision,
Decision Outcome, Unconditional Branch, Decision Table, Condition Combination Coverage

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 Reference: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and
documents.

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 sections mentioned. 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. Reference: 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

The correct outcome of a two-value boundary value analysis applied to the password length is the set
of test cases represented by option D. Boundary value analysis is a test design technique that focuses
on the values at the boundaries of an equivalence partition, such as the minimum and maximum
values, or the values just above and below the boundaries. A two-value boundary value analysis uses
two values for each boundary, one representing the valid value and one representing the invalid
value. For example, if the valid range of values is from 4 to 7, then the two values for the lower
boundary are 3 and 4, and the two values for the upper boundary are 7 and 8. The test cases in
option D use these values for the password length, while also satisfying the other requirements of
the password, such as containing at least one numeric character, one capital letter, and one
lowercase letter. The test cases in option D are:
1RhT: a 4-character password that is valid
rSp53: a 5-character password that is valid
3N3e10: a 6-character password that is valid
8sBdby: an 8-character password that is invalid The test cases in the other options are incorrect,
because they either use values that are not at the boundaries of the password length, or they do not
meet the other requirements of the password. For example, the test cases in option A are:
1xA: a 3-character password that is invalid, but it does not contain a capital letter
aB11: a 4-character password that is valid
Pq1ZZab: a 7-character password that is valid
7iDD0a1x: an 8-character password that is invalid Reference: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level
(CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:
ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.1, Black-box Test Design
Techniques1
ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Boundary Value Analysis, Equivalence Partition2

The minimum number of test cases needed to cover the full decision table associated with this
scenario is 6. This is because the decision table has 4 conditions (type of customer and amount of
sale) and 4 actions (bonus percentage). The conditions have 2 possible values each (Basic or
Premium, and G1, G2 or G3), so the total number of combinations is 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16. However, not
all combinations are valid, as some of them are contradictory or impossible. For example, a sale
cannot be both less than 300 euros and greater than 2000 euros at the same time. Therefore, we
need to eliminate the invalid combinations and keep only the valid ones. The valid combinations are:
Type of customer Amount of sale Bonus percentage
Basic G1 3%
Basic G2 5%
Basic G3 7%
Premium G1 5%
Premium G2 7%
Premium G3 10%
These 6 combinations cover all the possible values of the conditions and actions, and they are the
minimum number of test cases needed to cover the full decision table.
Reference: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents,

Experience-based test techniques are test design techniques that rely on the experience, knowledge,
intuition, and creativity of the testers to identify and execute test cases that are likely to find defects
in the software system. Experience-based test techniques are often useful to detect hidden defects
that have not been targeted by black-box test techniques, which are test design techniques that use
the external behavior and specifications of the software system as the test basis, without considering
its internal structure or implementation. Experience-based test techniques can complement black-
box test techniques by covering aspects that are not explicitly specified, such as usability, security,
reliability, performance, etc. The other statements are false, because:
Experience-based test techniques do not rely on the experience of testers to identify the root causes
of defects found by black-box test techniques, but rather to identify the potential sources of defects
based on their own insights, heuristics, or exploratory testing. The root causes of defects are usually
identified by debugging or root cause analysis, which are activities that involve examining the code
or the development process to find and fix the errors that led to the defects.
Some of the most common test basis used by white-box test techniques include the source code, the
design documents, the architecture diagrams, and the control flow graphs of the software system.
White-box test techniques are test design techniques that use the internal structure and
implementation of the software system as the test basis, and aim to achieve a certain level of test
coverage based on the code elements, such as statements, branches, paths, etc. User stories, use
cases, and business processes are examples of test basis used by black-box test techniques, as they
describe the functional and non-functional requirements of the software system from the
perspective of the users or the stakeholders.
The primary goal of experience-based test techniques is not to design test cases that can be easily
automated using a GUI-based test automation tool, but rather to design test cases that can reveal
defects that are not easily detected by other test techniques, such as boundary value analysis,
equivalence partitioning, state transition testing, etc. Test automation is the use of software tools to
execute test cases and compare actual results with expected results, without human intervention.
Test automation can be applied to different types of test techniques, depending on the test
objectives, the test levels, the test tools, and the test resources. However, test automation is not
always feasible or beneficial, especially for test cases that require human judgment, creativity, or
exploration, such as those designed by experience-based test techniques. Reference: ISTQB Certified
Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:
ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.1, Black-box Test Design
Techniques
ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.2, White-box Test Design
Techniques
ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.3, Experience-based Test Design
Techniques
ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Experience-based Test Technique, Black-box Test Technique,
White-box Test Technique, Test Basis, Test Coverage, Test Automation

As a functional tester, you should open a defect report providing detailed information on which
devices and by running which tests you observed the issue. A defect report is a document that
records the occurrence, nature, and status of a defect detected during testing, and provides
information for further investigation and resolution. A defect report should include relevant
information such as the defect summary, the defect description, the defect severity, the defect
priority, the defect status, the defect origin, the defect category, the defect reproduction steps, the
defect screenshots, the defect attachments, etc. Opening a defect report is a good practice for any
tester who finds a defect in the software system, regardless of the type or level of testing performed.
The other options are not recommended, because:
The issue is related to performance efficiency, not functionality, but that does not mean that as a
functional tester, you should not open any defect report as all the functional tests passed.
Performance efficiency is a quality characteristic that measures how well the software system
performs its functions under stated conditions, such as the response time, the resource utilization,
the throughput, etc. Performance efficiency is an important aspect of the user experience, especially
for web applications that run on different devices and networks. Even if the functional tests passed,
meaning that the software system met the functional requirements, the performance issue observed
on some devices could still affect the user satisfaction, the usability, the reliability, and the security of
the software system. Therefore, as a functional tester, you have the responsibility to report the
performance issue as a defect, and provide as much information as possible to help the developers
or the performance testers to investigate and resolve it.