iSQI CTFL-AcT Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Equivalence Partitioning (EP) is a black-box test design technique that divides input data into valid and invalid partitions, where each partition is expected to exhibit similar behavior. In the context of acceptance testing, EP is especially effective because it helps validate whether a system behaves correctly for representative input ranges defined in the acceptance criteria.

Acceptance testing aims to confirm that the system meets business requirements and handles inputs as expected. EP allows the tester to cover a large input space using fewer test cases while maintaining a high level of effectiveness. It supports efficiency, broad coverage, and relevance to user expectations.

Other options are less suitable:

A. Static code analysis is a white-box technique, more relevant to unit or integration testing.

B. Input validation is an objective or activity, not a test design technique.

D. Defect-based testing is more diagnostic, used after failures or during exploratory testing — less structured for planned acceptance testing.

Exact Reference – ISTQB CTFL Acceptance Testing Syllabus (Section 2.4):

“Black-box techniques such as equivalence partitioning and boundary value analysis are suitable for deriving acceptance tests from user stories or business rules.”

Comprehensive Detailed Explanation (Approx. 200 words):

Acceptance criteria should focus on business-relevant outcomes that are specific, testable, and observable. In this user story, the goal is to validate that the registration functionality is available and behaves as expected.

Let's analyze each proposition:

i) “A registration form is displayed on the screen.”

→ Valid. It is observable, specific, and directly aligned with the user story.

ii) “The form is written in the Groovy language; the cursor is initially set on the ‘login’ field...”

→ Invalid as acceptance criteria. It contains implementation details (e.g., “Groovy language”) irrelevant to business stakeholders. Also, low-level UI behavior like cursor position is overly technical and not a business-driven criterion.

iii) “I cannot register myself if the login I choose is used by another player.”

→ Valid. It defines system behavior based on a business rule (unique login) and is testable.

iv) “After successful registration process I am informed about it by an e-mail.”

→ Valid. It describes a user-visible outcome after registration, which is observable and testable.

Correct answer: D. only i), iii), and iv) are well-written acceptance criteria.

Exact Reference – ISTQB CTFL Acceptance Testing Syllabus (Section 1.3.2):

“Acceptance criteria must describe the externally visible and verifiable system behavior, excluding implementation details.”

In Gherkin syntax (Given-When-Then), the purpose is to describe system behavior in a way that’s understandable to all stakeholders. Test steps should focus on user intentions and observable results — not UI implementation details — to ensure maintainability and abstraction.

Line 3 ("click 'Buy Tickets' button") refers explicitly to a UI element, which should generally be avoided in acceptance tests. Instead, it could say "I request to buy tickets."

Line 7 ("I should provide my personal data") is describing an action the user must take, not an outcome or result. In a Gherkin “Then” step, we expect an observable system response, not further user interaction.

Option C identifies both of these review concerns correctly.

Other options:

A includes an incorrect comment about line 4 ("quantity should not be set") — setting a value is acceptable.

B is false — the test case has reviewable issues.

D might be valid in a different context (e.g., boundary tests), but that’s not a flaw in the existing scenario.

Answer: C. Line 3 refers to an element of the user interface, which is to be avoided and line 7 is an action and not a result