ISTQB ISTQB-CTFL ISTQB-Foundation Level Exam Exam Practice Test

The Waterfall model exemplifies a software development model that does not support the principle of early testing. In the Waterfall model, each phase must be completed before the next begins, which delays testing until after the completion of the earlier phases like requirements gathering and design. This can often result in finding defects later in the development cycle, making them more expensive and time-consuming to fix​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​.References:

• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0: https://istqb-main-web-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/ISTQB_CTFL_Syllabus-v4.0.pdf
• ISTQB News Release on CTFL v4.0: https://www.istqb.org/news/posts/istqb-releases-certified-tester-foundation-level-v40-ctfl/

Project risks are the uncertainties or threats that may affect the project objectives, such as scope, schedule, cost, and quality. According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, some of the factors that contribute to project risks are:

• Skill and staff shortages: This factor refers to the lack of adequate or qualified human resources to perform the project tasks. This may result in delays, errors, rework, or low productivity.
• Problems in defining the right requirements: This factor refers to the difficulties or ambiguities in eliciting, analyzing, specifying, validating, or managing the requirements of the project. This may result in misalignment, inconsistencies, gaps, or changes in the requirements, affecting the project scope and quality.
• Contractual issues: This factor refers to the challenges or disputes that may arise from the contractual agreements between the project parties, such as clients, suppliers, vendors, or subcontractors. This may result in legal, financial, or ethical risks, affecting the project delivery and satisfaction.

The other options are not correct because they list factors that contribute to PRODUCT risks, not project risks. Product risks are the uncertainties or threats that may affect the quality or functionality of the software product or system. Some of the factors that contribute to product risks are:

• Poor software quality characteristics: This factor refers to the lack of adherence or compliance to the quality attributes or criteria of the software product or system, such as reliability, usability, security, performance, or maintainability. This may result in defects, failures, or dissatisfaction of the users or stakeholders.
• Software does not perform its intended functions: This factor refers to the deviation or discrepancy between the expected and actual behavior or output of the software product or system. This may result in errors, faults, or malfunctions of the software product or system.

References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Testing, Section 1.5: Risks and Testing, Pages 14-16.

• A pilot project is a small-scale experiment or trial that is conducted to evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and suitability of a test automation tool before implementing it on a larger scale1.
• The objectives of a pilot project may vary depending on the context and scope of the test automation initiative, but some common ones are2:
• Therefore, option C is not a valid objective of a pilot project, as it is not necessary to train all testers on using the tool at this stage. Training all testers on using the tool would be more appropriate after the tool has been selected and approved for full-scale implementation, and after the standards and guidelines have been established. Training all testers on using the tool during the pilot project would be inefficient, costly, and premature, as the tool may not be suitable or effective for the intended purpose, or may be replaced by another tool later.

References:

• 1: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 82
• 2: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 83
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 84
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 85

Communication from testers about defects, test results, and other test information should emphasize the benefits of testing such as increased quality and reduced risk. This positive framing helps in reinforcing the value of testing and ensuring stakeholders understand the contribution of testing to the overall project success​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​.References:

• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0: https://istqb-main-web-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/ISTQB_CTFL_Syllabus-v4.0.pdf

A decision table is a technique that should be used to cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an Automated Teller Machine (ATM). A decision table 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). A decision table can be used to test components that have multiple inputs and outputs that depend on logical combinations of conditions. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify three input conditions: the bank card is valid, the PIN code is correct, and money is available in the user’s account. We can also identify four output actions: the card is rejected, the ATM asks for another PIN code, the ATM asks for another amount, and the ATM dispenses the money. A decision table can show all possible combinations of these conditions and actions in a systematic way.

Use case based testing is not a technique that can cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an ATM. Use case based testing is a technique that verifies that a software product or system meets its specified requirements or user stories by executing realistic scenarios or workflows. Use case based testing can be used to test components that have complex or dynamic interactions with users or other systems. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify several use cases, such as withdraw money, check balance, transfer money, etc. Each use case can have one or more scenarios that describe the steps and outcomes of the interaction. However, use case based testing may not cover all possible combinations of input conditions, as some scenarios may be omitted or overlooked.

Boundary value analysis is not a technique that can cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an ATM. Boundary value analysis is a technique that tests boundary values between partitions of equivalent data. Boundary values are values at the edge of an equivalence partition or at the smallest incremental distance on either side of an edge. Boundary value analysis can be used to test components that have input values that can be divided into partitions of equivalent data. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify boundary values for the input amount, such as the minimum and maximum amount allowed by the system or the user’s account. However, boundary value analysis may not cover all possible combinations of input conditions, as some conditions may not have boundary values or may not be related to input values.

Equivalence class partitioning is not a technique that can cover all possible combinations of input conditions for withdrawing money from an ATM. Equivalence class partitioning is a technique that divides the input data and output results of a software component into partitions of equivalent data. Each partition should contain data that is treated in the same way by the component. Equivalence class partitioning can be used to test components that have input values that can be divided into partitions of equivalent data. For example, for testing the ATM, we can identify equivalence partitions for the input amount, such as valid amount (within the range allowed by the system and the user’s account) and invalid amount (outside the range allowed by the system or the user’s account). However, equivalence class partitioning may not cover all possible combinations of input conditions, as some conditions may not be related to input values or may have more than two partitions. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 34-46.

Static analysis is a technique that analyzes the source code or other software artifacts without executing them. Static analysis can detect defects such as syntax errors, coding standards violations, potential security vulnerabilities, or logical flaws. Static analysis can catch the bug in the first implementation, as it contains two syntax errors: the variable y is declared twice, and the assignment statement X = y=z is invalid. Static analysis cannot catch the bugs in the other three implementations, as they are logical errors that do not violate any syntax rules, but produce incorrect results. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 3, page 25-26.

An oracle is a mechanism or source that can provide the expected result for a given test input or situation. Sometimes old version of a product can be used as an oracle, if it is assumed that the old version behaves correctly for the test cases that are executed on the new version. This is also known as back-to-back testing. Oracles do not help in reproducing the irreproducible bugs, as they only provide the expected results, not the actual results. Oracles are not derived from the design, but from the requirements or specifications. Oracles cannot be generated automatically using data generators, as data generators only provide test inputs, not test outputs. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 9.

A failure is an event in which a component or system does not perform a required function within specified limits1. A requirement is a condition or capability needed by a user to solve a problem or achieve an objective2. In this case, the requirement is that the diagnostics tests should execute in less than 2 seconds. Therefore, any event that violates this requirement is a failure. The only option that clearly violates this requirement is B. The diagnostic tests take too much time to execute. If the diagnostic tests take more than 2 seconds to complete, then they do not meet the specified limit and thus fail. The other options are not necessarily failures related to the specified requirement. Option A. The diagnostic tests fail to start after a system reset is a failure, but not related to the time limit. It is related to the functionality of the self-diagnostics module. Option C. The diagnostic tests that measure the speed of the memory, fail is also a failure, but not related to the time limit. It is related to the accuracy of the memory tests. Option D. The diagnostic tests fail due to incorrect implementation of the test code is also a failure, but not related to the time limit. It is related to the quality of the test code. References = ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Requirements Engineering Fundamentals.

Use case testing is a technique that helps identify test cases that exercise the whole system on a transaction by transaction basis from start to finish. Use cases are descriptions of how users interact with the system to achieve a specific goal. Use case testing is not focused on data flow, but rather on process flow. Use case testing can be performed by professional testers, customers or end users, depending on the context. Use case testing does not require the test cases to be designed by customers or end users, but rather by anyone who has access to the use case specifications. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 4, page 36.

State transition testing is a black-box testing technique used to analyze the behavior of a system by examining the transitions between different states in response to events. In state transition testing, a state table or diagram is used to represent the states of a system and the transitions between these states triggered by events.

Option D is correct because in state transition testing, all transitions between states should be explicitly shown in the state table. This includes valid transitions that the system is expected to make under normal operation and, where relevant, invalid transitions that should be tested to ensure the system handles unexpected or erroneous inputs gracefully. The state table provides a comprehensive view of how the system should behave, making it possible to create tests that cover all defined transitions.

When a manager asks when testing will be complete, the most appropriate and informative resource to provide an answer is test progress reports (Option A). Test progress reports contain detailed information on the status of testing activities, including what has been accomplished, what remains to be done, the results of the tests conducted, and any issues or risks that might impact the completion of testing. These reports allow for an informed assessment of the testing progress and estimation of when testing might be completed. Options B, C, and D do not provide the structured, detailed, and specific information required to accurately answer the manager's question about the completion of testing.

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.

• Looking for defects in a system does not require ignoring system details, but rather paying attention to them and understanding how they affect the system’s quality, functionality, and usability. Ignoring system details could lead to missing important defects or testing irrelevant aspects of the system.
• Identifying defects may be perceived as criticism against product, especially by the developers or stakeholders who are invested in the product’s success. However, identifying defects is not meant to be a personal attack, but rather a constructive feedback that helps to improve the product and ensure its alignment with the requirements and expectations of the users and clients.
• Looking for defects in system requires professional pessimism and curiosity, as testers need to anticipate and explore the possible ways that the system could fail, malfunction, or behave unexpectedly. Professional pessimism means being skeptical and critical of the system’s quality and reliability, while curiosity means being eager and interested in finding out the root causes and consequences of the defects.
• Testing is often seen as a destructive activity instead of constructive activity, as it involves finding and reporting the flaws and weaknesses of the system, rather than creating or enhancing it. However, testing is actually a constructive activity, as it contributes to the system’s improvement, verification, validation, and optimization, and ultimately to the delivery of a high-quality product that meets the needs and expectations of the users and clients.

A dynamic analysis tool is a tool that performs analysis of a software product based on its behavior during execution. A dynamic analysis tool can monitor various aspects of a program’s run-time performance, such as memory usage, CPU load, response time, or resource leaks. A dynamic analysis tool can monitor the allocation, use and de-allocation of memory during run-time of a program, which can help detect defects such as memory leaks, buffer overflows, or memory corruption. A dynamic analysis tool cannot provide support for traceability of tests, test results and incidents to source documents, as this is a function of a test management tool. A dynamic analysis tool cannot execute programs step-by-step in order to reproduce failures and find corresponding defects, as this is a function of a debugging tool. A dynamic analysis tool cannot provide support for release of baselines consisting of configuration items, as this is a function of a configuration management tool. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 6, page 56-57.

For executive-level employees, a test summary report should be concise and focus on high-level information. It typically includes a summary of defects categorized by priority or budget. Executives are generally interested in the overall status and the impact on critical business objectives rather than detailed technical information. The report should provide an overview of the most important aspects of testing, such as key issues, test progress, and any risks or concerns that could affect project outcomes.References:

• ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 5.3.1.

When scheduling test cases, priorities and dependencies must be considered. The best execution order will respect both the logical dependencies and the priorities assigned to each test case.

Given the options, the correct order considering the priorities and dependencies is:

• TC1 (Priority 1)
• **TC​ (ISTQB not-for-profit association)​ity 2, dependent on TC1)
• TC2 (Priority 3, dependent on TC1)
• TC4 (Priority 4)
• TC5 (Priority 5)
• TC6 (Priority 6, dependent on TC4)

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, understanding dependencies and scheduling tests accordingly is crucial for effective test execution【6†source】.

References:

• Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0
• ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 4.0 (2023)

A unit test framework tool is a tool that supports the creation, execution, and reporting of unit tests, which are tests that verify the functionality and quality of individual software components (such as functions or methods) in source code. A unit test framework tool can help to detect defects in functions or methods in source code by providing features such as test case generation, test case execution, test result comparison, test coverage measurement, etc. Some examples of unit test framework tools are JUnit, NUnit, TestNG, etc. The other options are not tools that are likely to detect defects in functions or methods in source code. A configuration management tool is a tool that supports the management and control of different versions and variants of software products or components. A test design tool is a tool that supports the design and generation of test cases based on some criteria or rules. A monitoring tool is a tool that monitors the behavior or performance of a system or component under test. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 10.

The test engineer should re-run the tests, in order to ensure that new defects have not been introduced by the fix. This is also known as regression testing, which is a type of testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after a change. Regression testing helps to detect any side effects or unintended consequences of a fix or a modification. The other options are incorrect reasons for re-running the tests. The test engineer should not re-run the tests, as they have already been run, and results recorded, because this ignores the possibility of new defects caused by the fix. The test engineer should not re-run the tests, they should be part of the developer tests, because this assumes that developer tests are sufficient and reliable, which may not be true. The test engineer should not re-run the tests, because the defect shows that the test cases need to be updated, because this does not address the impact of the fix on other test cases or functionalities. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 41.

Branch coverage is a type of structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of branches or decision outcomes that are executed by the test cases. A branch is a point in the code where the control flow can take two or more alternative paths based on a condition. For example, an if-else statement is a branch that can execute either the if-block or the else-block depending on the evaluation of the condition. Branch coverage ensures that each branch is taken at least once by the test cases, and thus reveals the behavior of the software under different scenarios. Branch coverage is also known as decision coverage or all-edges coverage.

Branch coverage is suitable for testing the cases where a specific action is not allowed, because it can verify that the test cases cover all the possible outcomes of the conditions that determine the action. For example, if the program has a condition that checks if the manufacturing stage can be stopped, then branch coverage can ensure that the test cases cover both the cases where the stage can be stopped and where it cannot be stopped. This way, branch coverage can help identify any missing or incorrect branches that may lead to undesired or unsafe actions.

The other options are not correct because they are not suitable for testing the cases where a specific action is not allowed. Code coverage is a general term that encompasses various types of coverage metrics, such as statement coverage, branch coverage, data flow coverage, etc. Code coverage does not specify which type of coverage metric is used for the analysis. Data flow coverage is a type of structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of data flow paths that are executed by the test cases. A data flow path is a sequence of statements that define, use, or kill a variable. Data flow coverage is useful for testing the correctness and completeness of the data manipulation in the software, but not for testing the conditions that determine the actions. Statement coverage is a type of structural coverage metric that measures the percentage of statements or lines of code that are executed by the test cases. Statement coverage ensures that each statement is executed at least once by the test cases, but it does not reveal the behavior of the software under different scenarios. Statement coverage is a weaker criterion than branch coverage, because it does not account for the branches or decision outcomes in the code. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, Chapter 4: Test Techniques, Section 4.3: Structural Testing Techniques, Pages 51-54.

Defect clustering is a testing principle that states that a small number of modules contain most of the defects detected during pre-release testing, or are responsible for most of the operational failures. Defect clustering can be explained by Pareto’s principle (also known as the 80-20 rule), which states that approximately 80% of the problems are found in 20% of the modules. Defect clustering suggests a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, as it implies that more effort should be allocated to test the modules that have shown high defect density or criticality. Pesticide paradox is another testing principle that states that if the same tests are repeated over and over again, eventually they will no longer find any new defects. Pesticide paradox suggests a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but not based on defect clustering, but rather on test diversity and coverage. Early testing is a testing principle that states that testing activities should start as early as possible in the software development life cycle and should be focused on defined objectives. Early testing does not suggest a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but rather a proactive approach to prevent defects from occurring or propagating. Absence-of-errors fallacy is a testing principle that states that finding and fixing defects does not help if the system built is unusable and does not fulfill the users’ needs and expectations. Absence-of-errors fallacy does not suggest a change to the current test strategy for the next test cycle, but rather a focus on quality attributes and user requirements. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 1, page 9-10.

The relationship between impact analysis and regression testing in maintenance testing is that impact analysis is used to evaluate the amount of regression testing to be performed. Maintenance testing is a type of testing that is performed on an existing software product after it has been delivered or deployed, in order to ensure that it still meets its requirements and functions correctly after a change or a modification. Maintenance testing can be triggered by various reasons, such as corrective maintenance (fixing defects), adaptive maintenance (adapting to new environments), perfective maintenance (improving performance), preventive maintenance (avoiding future problems), etc. Impact analysis is a technique that is used to assess the extent and nature of changes introduced by maintenance activities on the software product or project. Impact analysis helps to identify which parts of the software product are affected by the changes, which parts need to be modified or updated accordingly, which parts need to be retested or verified for correctness or compatibility, etc. Regression testing is a type of testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after a change or a modification. Regression testing helps to detect any side effects or unintended consequences of maintenance activities on the software product’s functionality or quality. Regression testing can be performed at various levels and scopes depending on the impact analysis results. Therefore, in maintenance testing, impact analysis is used to evaluate the amount of regression testing to be performed. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 20.

• The question is about identifying an example of testing contributing to higher quality. Quality is the degree to which a component, system or process meets specified requirements and/or user/customer needs and expectations1. Testing is the process consisting of all lifecycle activities, both static and dynamic, concerned with planning, preparation and evaluation of software products and related work products to determine that they satisfy specified requirements, to demonstrate that they are fit for purpose and to detect defects2.
• Therefore, testing contributes to higher quality by verifying and validating that the software products and related work products meet the specified requirements, are fit for purpose and have no defects, or at least have a reduced number of defects. Testing also provides information about the quality of the software products and related work products to the stakeholders, who can make informed decisions based on the test results3.
• Out of the four given statements, only option D is an example of testing contributing to higher quality, as it shows that testing has detected a defect (a flaw in a component or system that can cause the component or system to fail to perform its required function4) and that the defect has been resolved (fixed and confirmed) prior to release (delivery of the software product to the customer or end user). This means that testing has prevented a potential failure (an event in which a component or system does not perform a required function within specified limits) from occurring in the operational environment, and thus has improved the quality of the software product.
• Option A is not an example of testing contributing to higher quality, as it is a reporting activity that summarizes the test results and evaluates the test objectives, but does not directly affect the quality of the software product or related work products. A test summary report is a document that records and communicates the outcomes of testing activities, including test completion criteria, test results, incident reports, test summary and evaluation, and lessons learned.
• Option B is not an example of testing contributing to higher quality, as it is a planning activity that estimates the resources and time needed for testing activities, but does not directly affect the quality of the software product or related work products. A test effort estimate is an approximation of the amount of work and/or the duration of time required to perform testing activities.
• Option C is not an example of testing contributing to higher quality, as it is a preparation activity that sets up the test environment (an environment containing hardware, instrumentation, simulators, software tools, and other support elements needed to conduct a test), but does not directly affect the quality of the software product or related work products. A test environment installation is a process of installing and configuring the test environment according to the test environment specification.

References:

• 1: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 10
• 2: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 11
• 3: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 12
• 4: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 13
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 13
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 77
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 78
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 79
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 80
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 81
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 82
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 83
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 84
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 85
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 86
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 87
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 88
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 89
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 90
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 91
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 92
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 93
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 94
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 95
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 96
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 97
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 98
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 99
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 100
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 101
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 102
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 103
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 104
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 105
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 106
• : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 107

In the given code snippet, the premium is increased by 1500 if the age is less than 30. Therefore, at the boundary value of age 29, the premium should be 2500 + 1500 = 4000, and at age 30, the premium should remain at its initial value of 2500, as the condition is no longer met. Option B correctly reflects this with 29, 4000 and 30, 2500 as the boundary value and the expected results, respectively.

• The question is about marking the correct sentences among the given statements related to defects, failures, and mistakes. According to the ISTQB glossary, the definitions of these terms are1:
• Therefore, out of the five given statements, only two are correct, namely:
• The other three statements are incorrect, namely:

References:

• 1: ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms 4.0, 2023, available at ISTQB) and ASTQB).

Maintenance testing is testing performed on a software product after delivery to correct defects or improve performance or other attributes. Maintenance testing can be triggered by various situations, such as modifications to a released software or system, migration of the system data to a replacement system, or retirement of the software or system. Maintenance testing is not executed when there is an update to the maintainability requirements during the development phase, as this is not a maintenance situation but rather a change request that should be handled by the development process. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 2, page 18-19.

 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.

• Effort estimate does not depend on the budget of the project, but rather on the scope, complexity, and quality of the software product and the testing activities1. Budget is a constraint that may affect the feasibility and accuracy of the effort estimate, but it is not a factor that determines the effort estimate. Effort estimate is the amount of work required to complete the testing activities, measured in terms of person-hours, person-days, or person-months2.
• The other options are correct because:

References =

• 1 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 154
• 2 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 155
• 3 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 156
• 4 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 157
• 5 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 158
• 6 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 159
• 7 ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 16
• [8] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 160
• [9] ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, 2023, p. 161

Statements I, IV and V are valid testing principles according to the ISTQB syllabus. Statement I states that exhaustive testing is in general impossible, because it would require testing all possible inputs, outputs and combinations of states, which is usually impractical or impossible. Statement IV states that testing cannot guarantee that a program is correct, because testing can only show the presence of defects, not their absence. Statement V states that defects cluster together in certain areas of the product, which means that some modules or functions are more likely to contain defects than others. Statements II and III are invalid testing principles. Statement II states that exhaustive testing should be executed for code intended to be reused, which contradicts statement I. Statement III states that testing may guarantee that a program is correct, which contradicts statement IV. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, pages 4-5.

Component integration tests are designed to verify the interactions and interfaces between integrated components. These tests should be carried out after component testing (where individual components are tested in isolation) but before system testing (where the entire system is tested as a whole). This ensures that any issues arising from the integration of components are identified and resolved early in the testing process, making option D the correct answer​​.

Testing is necessary for various reasons, such as:

• To detect defects and failures that may affect the quality, performance, reliability or security of a software product or system
• To verify that a software product or system meets its specified requirements, expectations and standards
• To validate that a software product or system fulfills its intended purpose and satisfies its stakeholders’ needs
• To provide information and feedback about the status and risks of a software product or system
• To comply with regulations or contractual obligations that mandate testing for certain types of software products or systems The following statements describe some reasons why testing is necessary:
• A) The customer decided that 100% branch coverage shall be achieved. This is a reason why testing is necessary, as it reflects a contractual obligation or a quality standard that requires testing to measure and achieve a certain level of code coverage.
• C) For avionics and pharmaceutical systems software testing is mandated by standards. This is a reason why testing is necessary, as it reflects a regulation or a compliance requirement that mandates testing for certain types of software products or systems that have high safety or security risks.
• D) The risks associated with delivering the system are far higher than the cost of testing. This is a reason why testing is necessary, as it reflects a risk-based approach that considers testing as an investment to reduce the probability and impact of potential failures or defects. The following statement does not describe a reason why testing is necessary:
• B) The acquisition of test automation tools was based on the assumption that it will be used m all projects. This is not a reason why testing is necessary, as it reflects a business decision or a resource allocation that does not justify the need or purpose of testing. Test automation tools are not always suitable or beneficial for all projects, and testing can be performed with or without test automation tools. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 1, page 5-6.

Quality Assurance (QA) activities are focused on providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled through planned and systematic processes. These activities are preventive in nature, aimed at ensuring quality is built into the product from the beginning.

• Requirements elicitation (A) is part of the requirements engineering process and is concerned with gathering the needs and conditions to meet for a new or altered product.
• Defect analysis (B) can be part of QA activities as it involves analyzing defects to prevent them in future development cycles.
• Functional Testing (C) and Performance Testing (D) are types of dynamic testing, which are actually Quality Control activities rather than Quality Assurance. They are concerned with the identification of defects in the product, not with the processes to prevent defects.

Since the question asks for an activity that is NOT part of Quality Assurance, options A and B are incorrect because they can be part of QA activities. Between C and D, while both are dynamic testing activities, Functional Testing (C) is more directly related to verifying the functionality against specified requirements, which is more aligned with Quality Control. Therefore, C is the best answer.

The correct answer can be derived by applying the given rules to each case:

• A is ST certified and has 12 years of testing experience, which is more than 10 years. Therefore, A does not match any of the rules and the result is unknown.
• B is not ST certified and has 7 years of testing experience, which is between 5 and 10 years. Therefore, B matches rule 3 and the result is limited access.
• C is not ST certified and has 3 years of testing experience, which is less than 5 years. Therefore, C does not match any of the rules and the result is unknown. Verified References: This question does not require any external references, as it is based on logical reasoning.

There are two main approaches to test estimation:

• Expert-based approach:
• Metrics-based approach:

According to the ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, the expert-based approach relies on experts' experience and knowledge, which aligns with the Wideband Delphi technique【6†source】.

References:

• Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0
• ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 4.0 (2023)

The purpose of a review is to find defects and improve the quality of the work product, not to criticize or blame the author. Reporting defects objectively means describing them factually and constructively, without using negative or emotional language that could offend the author or damage their motivation. This way, the author can take the feedback positively as an effort at improving the product and not as a personal assault. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 138.

In maintenance testing, the relationship between impact analysis and regression testing is that the impact analysis is used to evaluate the amount of regression testing to be performed. Maintenance testing is a type of testing that is performed on an existing software product after it has been delivered or deployed, in order to ensure that it still meets its requirements and functions correctly after a change or a modification. Maintenance testing can be triggered by various reasons, such as corrective maintenance (fixing defects), adaptive maintenance (adapting to new environments), perfective maintenance (improving performance), preventive maintenance (avoiding future problems), etc. Impact analysis is a technique that is used to assess the extent and nature of changes introduced by maintenance activities on the software product or project. Impact analysis helps to identify which parts of the software product are affected by the changes, which parts need to be modified or updated accordingly, which parts need to be retested or verified for correctness or compatibility, etc. Regression testing is a type of testing that verifies that previously tested software still performs correctly after a change or a modification. Regression testing helps to detect any side effects or unintended consequences of maintenance activities on the software product’s functionality or quality. Regression testing can be performed at various levels and scopes depending on the impact analysis results. Therefore, in maintenance testing, impact analysis is used to evaluate the amount of regression testing to be performed. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 20.

 State testing techniques are a type of dynamic testing techniques that are based on the behavior of the system under test for different input conditions and events. Dynamic testing techniques require the system to be executed with test cases, whereas static testing techniques do not. Static testing techniques can be applied before the code is ready for execution, such as reviews, inspections, walkthroughs, and static analysis. Static testing techniques can help find defects early in the development process, improve the quality of the code, and reduce the cost and effort of dynamic testing. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 Syllabus, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, Page 281; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Page 292

Boundary value analysis is not an experience-based technique, but rather a specification-based technique (also known as black-box technique). Experience-based techniques are techniques that rely on the tester’s knowledge and intuition to derive and select test cases based on their experience with similar systems, technologies, domains, risks, etc. Some examples of experience-based techniques are error guessing, exploratory testing, fault attack, checklist-based testing, etc. Specification-based techniques are techniques that rely on the tester’s analysis and interpretation of the requirements or specifications of the system under test to derive and select test cases based on some criteria or rules. Some examples of specification-based techniques are equivalence partitioning, boundary value analysis, decision table testing, state transition testing, etc. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 31.

To achieve 100% statement coverage, we need to design test cases that ensure every statement in the given pseudo-code is executed at least once. Analyzing the pseudo-code, we notice that there are conditions based on two variables: Gender and Age. To cover all statements, we need to consider the paths that lead to each assignment of the Shoe Size variable.

• Gender = Boy, Age <= 3 (Shoe Size assignment is not reached, but the condition is evaluated)
• Gender = Boy, Age > 3 AND Age < 5 (Shoe Size = 1)
• Gender = Boy, Age >= 5 AND Age < 7 (Shoe Size = 2)
• Gender != Boy, Age <= 3 (Again, Shoe Size assignment is not reached, but the condition is evaluated)
• Gender != Boy, Age > 3 AND Age < 5 (Shoe Size = 0)
• Gender != Boy, Age >= 5 AND Age < 7 (Shoe Size = 1)

However, upon closer inspection, we see that tests 1 and 4 do not contribute to statement coverage as they do not lead to a Shoe Size assignment. Therefore, we only need 4 test cases to achieve 100% statement coverage, making option B the correct answer.

A correct list of boundary values for the P input should include the minimum and maximum values of the valid range (15 and 350), as well as the values just below and above the boundaries (14 and 351). Boundary value analysis is a test design technique that involves testing the values at or near the boundaries of an input domain or output range, as these values are more likely to cause errors than values in the middle. Option B satisfies this condition, as it has all four boundary values (14, 15, 350, 351). Option A has only two boundary values (14 and 351), option C has only two boundary values (15 and 350), and option D has no boundary values at all. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 34.

Risk level is determined by the combination of two factors: the likelihood of an event occurring and the impact or harm that could result from that event. This approach allows risks to be prioritized based on their potential effect on the project or system. The likelihood represents the probability of the risk event occurring, while the impact represents the severity of the consequences if the event does happen. This concept is fundamental in risk-based testing and helps guide decision-making during the testing process.References:

• ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 1.4.1.

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.References:ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.1 "Software Development Lifecycles".

Statement B contradicts the general principles of testing, because running the same test set more often will not increase the chances of finding new defects, unless there are some changes in the system or environment that affect the test results. Running different test sets with different inputs, outputs or conditions would be more effective in finding new defects. Statements A, C and D are consistent with the general principles of testing. Statement A states that most defects are found in a small subset of a system’s modules, which is true according to the defect clustering principle. Statement C states that testing is better if it starts at the beginning of a project, which is true according to the early testing principle. Statement D states that how testing is done, is based on the situation in a particular project, which is true according to the context-dependent testing principle. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, pages 4-6.

Configuration management is a process that establishes and maintains consistency among work products throughout their life cycle. Configuration management affects testing in various ways, such as:

• Proper configuration management ensures that testers can uniquely identify the tested item, which can help traceability, reproducibility and accountability.
• Proper configuration management ensures that testers have access to consistent versions of software components and testware, which can help reliability, compatibility and efficiency.
• Proper configuration management ensures that testers can track changes and defects in software components and testware, which can help verification, validation and reporting.
• Proper configuration management ensures that testers can control the configuration of the test environment, which can help stability, security and performance. Configuration management is not a prerequisite for test planning, as test planning can proceed without configuration management, although it may be less effective or accurate. Configuration management is not important for developers only, but for testers as well, as it affects the quality and consistency of the testing process and products. Configuration management has a significant influence on the test project, as it affects various aspects of testing, such as traceability, reproducibility, reliability, compatibility, efficiency, verification, validation, reporting, stability, security and performance. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, Chapter 6, page 60-61.

Test planning is a key activity in the testing process that involves defining the objectives, approach, resources, and schedule of intended test activities. Setting the entry and exit criteria (I) and determining the number of resources required (III) are integral parts of test planning. Determining the validity of bug reports (II) is more aligned with test analysis or test management activities post-execution, and determining the expected result for test cases (IV) is part of test design. Therefore, options I and III (B) are the activities that belong to test planning​​.

Static analysis tools are software tools that examine the source code of a program without executing it. They can detect various types of issues, such as syntax errors, coding standards violations, security vulnerabilities, and potential bugs12. However, static analysis tools cannot identify issues that depend on the runtime behavior or performance of the program, such as very low MTBF (Mean Time Between failure)3. MTBF is a measure of the reliability of a system or component. It is calculated by dividing the total operating time by the number of failures. MTBF reflects how often a system or component fails during its expected lifetime. Static analysis tools cannot measure MTBF because they do not run the program or observe its failures. MTBF can only be estimated by dynamic testing, which involves executing the program under various conditions and collecting data on its failures4. Therefore, very low MTBF is an issue that cannot be identified by static analysis tools. The other options, such as potentially endless loops, referencing a variable with an undefined value, and security vulnerabilities, are issues that can be identified by static analysis tools. Static analysis tools can detect potentially endless loops by analyzing the control flow and data flow of the program and checking for conditions that may never become false5. Static analysis tools can detect referencing a variable with an undefined value by checking the scope and initialization of variables and reporting any use of uninitialized variables6. Static analysis tools can detect security vulnerabilities by checking for common patterns of insecure code, such as buffer overflows, SQL injections, cross-site scripting, and weak encryption. References = What Is Static Analysis? Static Code Analysis Tools - Perforce Software, How Static Code Analysis Works | Perforce, Static Code Analysis: Techniques, Top 5 Benefits & 3 Challenges, What is MTBF? Mean Time Between Failures Explained | Perforce, Static analysis tools - Software Testing MCQs - CareerRide, ISTQB_Chapter3 | Quizizz, [Static Code Analysis for Security Vulnerabilities | Perforce].

Structural testing is a type of testing that measures its effectiveness by tracking which lines of code were executed by the tests. Structural testing, also known as white-box testing or glass-box testing, is based on the internal structure, design, or implementation of the software. Structural testing aims to verify that the software meets the specified quality attributes, such as performance, security, reliability, or maintainability, by exercising the code paths, branches, statements, conditions, or data flows. Structural testing uses various coverage metrics, such as function coverage, line coverage, branch coverage, or statement coverage, to determine how much of the code has been tested and to identify any untested or unreachable parts of the code. Structural testing can be applied at any level of testing, such as unit testing, integration testing, system testing, or acceptance testing, but it is more commonly used at lower levels, where the testers have access to the source code.

The other options are not correct because they are not types of testing that measure their effectiveness by tracking which lines of code were executed by the tests. Acceptance testing is a type of testing that verifies that the software meets the acceptance criteria and the user requirements. Acceptance testing is usually performed by the end-users or customers, who may not have access to the source code or the technical details of the software. Acceptance testing is more concerned with the functionality, usability, or suitability of the software, rather than its internal structure or implementation. Integration testing is a type of testing that verifies that the software components or subsystems work together as expected. Integration testing is usually performed by the developers or testers, who may use both structural and functional testing techniques to check the interfaces, interactions, or dependencies between the components or subsystems. Integration testing is more concerned with the integration logic, data flow, or communication of the software, rather than its individual lines of code. Exploratory testing is a type of testing that involves simultaneous learning, test design, and test execution. Exploratory testing is usually performed by the testers, who use their creativity, intuition, or experience to explore the software and discover any defects, risks, or opportunities for improvement. Exploratory testing is more concerned with the behavior, quality, or value of the software, rather than its internal structure or implementation. References = ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 syllabus, Chapter 4: Test Techniques, Section 4.3: Structural Testing Techniques, Pages 51-54; Chapter 1: Fundamentals of Testing, Section 1.4: Testing Throughout the Software Development Lifecycle, Pages 11-13; Chapter 3: Static Testing, Section 3.4: Exploratory Testing, Pages 40-41.

Matching the descriptions with the test techniques:

• Black-box test techniques use the external description of the software, including requirements, use cases, and user stories.
• White-box test techniques use the internal structure of the software system, including software architecture and code.
• Black-box test techniques can reveal deviations from the requirements as they validate the external behavior of the software.
• Both black-box and white-box test techniques are applicable to functional and non-functional testing.
• Experience-based test techniques rely on the knowledge and intuition of developers, users, and other stakeholders​ (ISTQB Main Web)​.References:

• ISTQB® Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0: ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0 PDF

The most important report improvement for the given incident report would be to add information about which web browser was used when the defect was detected. This information is relevant for reproducing and debugging the defect, as different web browsers may have different behaviors or compatibility issues with the web application. The other options are less important or irrelevant for the incident report. The developer who should fix the bug can be assigned by the project manager or the defect tracking system, not by the tester who reports the defect. The time stamp when the incident happened is not very useful, as it does not indicate the cause or the frequency of the defect. The impact analysis is not part of the incident report, but rather of the risk assessment or prioritization process. Verified References: A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer, page 140.

Exploratory testing involves simultaneous test design and execution and is guided by a test charter, which outlines what needs to be tested, how it should be tested, and what to look for. This technique is typically conducted within predefined time periods, known as time-boxing, which allows testers to explore a system, understand its functionalities, and identify potential issues without detailed documentation or prior test case planning. The key aspects of exploratory testing include flexibility, adaptability, and the ability to respond to system behavior during testing.References:

• ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Section 4.4.2.

• The question is about selecting the correct test values for x based on equivalence partitioning. Equivalence partitioning is a software test design technique that divides the input data of a software unit into partitions of equivalent data from which test cases can be derived. In this case, the given equivalence classes are:

Option D provides a value from each of these partitions:

• For (x \leq -100), it gives -1000.
• For (-100 < x < 100), it gives -100 and 100.
• For (100 \leq x < 1000), it gives 500.
• For (x \geq 1000), it gives 1500.

So, option D covers all four given equivalence classes with appropriate values.

References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 documents available at ISTQB and ASTQB.

• 1: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 38
• 2: ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 39
• : ISTQB Foundation Level Syllabus 2018, Version 4.0, p. 40

Equivalence classes partitioning is a technique that divides the input data and output results of a software component into partitions of equivalent data. Each partition should contain data that is treated in the same way by the component. Equivalence classes partitioning can be used to reduce the number of test cases by selecting one representative value from each partition. For the ZIP code field, there are four equivalence classes based on the given rules:

• Valid ZIP code format and valid ZIP code value (e.g., 12345)
• Valid ZIP code format and invalid ZIP code value (e.g., 99999)
• Invalid ZIP code format and valid ZIP code value (e.g., 1234)
• Invalid ZIP code format and invalid ZIP code value (e.g., ABCDE) Therefore, four test cases are required to test this field, one for each equivalence class. Verified References: [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus - Springer], Chapter 4, page 37-38.