iSQI CTFL-AT Dumps

 Equivalence partitioning is a black-box test design technique that divides the input domain of a system into classes of data from which test cases can be derived. The idea is that if a system works correctly for a representative value from an equivalence class, it will work correctly for all values from that class, and vice versa. Equivalence partitioning reduces the number of test cases by eliminating redundant ones. For the given user story, equivalence partitioning is the most suitable technique because it can test the different outcomes of the annual car tax calculation based on the power of the vehicle, which is the main input for the system. By testing one value from each partition, the tester can verify the functionality of the system and detect any errors in the calculation logic. The other techniques are not as suitable because they do not focus on the inputdomain of the system, but rather on the conditions, transitions, or scenarios that are not directly related to the user story. References:

• : ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.2.2
• : ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Agile Testing Foundations, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2
• : 3

The whole-team approach is a principle of agile testing that involves everyone with different knowledge and skills to ensure project success. The whole-team approach means that the business representatives, testers, and developers work together in every step of the development process, from planning to delivery. The whole-team approach aims to enhance communication and collaboration within the team, leverage the various skill sets of the team members, and make quality everyone’s responsibility12. Therefore, the statement C is the most direct advantage of the whole-team approach, as it captures the essence of the principle and its benefits. The other statements are not directly related to the whole-team approach, or are incorrect. Statement A is about continuous integration, which is a practice of agile development that involves having at least once a day an automated build and test process that detects integration errors early and quickly. Continuous integration is not a direct consequence of the whole-team approach, although it may be facilitated by it13. Statement B is about avoiding requirements misunderstandings, which may be a benefit of the whole-team approach, but not the most direct one. The whole-team approach does not only focus on requirements, but also on design, implementation, testing, and delivery. Moreover, avoiding requirements misunderstandings may also depend on other factors, such as the quality of the user stories, the use of acceptance criteria, and the feedback from the customers and users14. Statement D is incorrect, as it contradicts the whole-team approach. The whole-team approach does not reduce the involvement of business representatives, but rather increases it. Business representatives are an integral part of the whole-team approach, as they provide the vision, the value, and the validation of the product. They collaborate with the testers and developers to define the features, prioritize the backlog, and verify the outcomes12. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 1.2.1, page 9; What is Whole Team Approach in Agile Testing?2, Section What is Whole Team Approach?; Continuous Integration3, Section What is Continuous Integration?; Effective User Stories - 3C’s and INVEST Guide4, Section The 3 C’s (Card, Conversation, Confirmation) of User Stories.

Testers replace developers in writing unit test automation scripts. Comprehensive Explanation: The integration of development and testing activities in Agile projects is based on the principle of cross-functional teamwork, where all team members collaborate and share their skills and knowledge to achieve a common goal. In the context of testing, this means that testing is not seen as a separate activity or phase, but as an integral part of the development process. Therefore, the following sentences are correct:

• While developers develop automated unit test scripts, testers write automated system level tests. This is an example of how developers and testers can work in parallel and complement each other’s testing efforts. Developers can focus on testing the internal quality of the code, while testers can focus on testing the external quality of the product.
• Developers write acceptance criteria and test cases, together with testers. This is an example of how developers and testers can work together to define and verify the user requirements and expectations. Developers can provide their technical expertise and input, while testers can provide their business and user perspective and feedback.
• Developers and testers may work as a pair to develop and test a feature. This is an example of how developers and testers can work closely and interactively to deliver a feature. Developers and testers can exchange ideas, suggestions, and information, and support each other in the coding and testing tasks.

The following sentence is incorrect:

• Testers replace developers in writing unit test automation scripts. This is not a valid example of the integration of development and testing activities in Agile projects, because it implies that testers take over the responsibility of developers, rather than collaborate with them. Testers should not replace developers in writing unit test automation scripts, because developers have more knowledge and experience in coding and debugging, and because unit testing is an essential part of the development process. Testers should instead work with developers to ensure that the unit test automation scripts are adequate, effective, and maintainable. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 1.2.1, page 9; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, pages 16 and 55.

 Agile software development is a term that encompasses a group of software development methodologies that are based on iterative incremental development, where requirements and solutions evolve through collaboration between self-organizing cross-functional teams. Agile methods promote adaptive planning, evolutionary development and delivery, a time-boxed iterative approach, and encourage rapid and flexible response to change. Some examples of agile methods are Scrum, Extreme Programming (XP), Kanban, and Lean Software Development. References:

• : ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 1.1.1
• : ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Agile Testing Foundations, Chapter 1, Section 1.1.1

The best black box test design technique for verifying the accuracy of this user story is equivalence partitioning. Equivalence partitioning is a technique that divides the input domain of a system into classes or groups that are expected to behave similarly. By testing one value from each class, the tester can reduce the number of test cases while still achieving good coverage. In this case, the input domainof the system is the amount of income, which can be divided into classes based on the tax percentage applied to different income ranges. For example, if the tax percentage is 10% for income below 10,000, 20% for income between 10,000 and 20,000, and 30% for income above 20,000, then the equivalence classes are: low income (<10,000), medium income (10,000-20,000), and high income (>20,000). By testing one value from each class, such as 5,000, 15,000, and 25,000, the tester can verify that the system calculates the correct tax percentage for each income range. This technique is more efficient and effective than testing all possible values of income, or testing only one value of income, or testing the states of income entry, or testing the statements in income calculation. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.3.1, page 19; ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Sample Exam Questions2, Question 5, page 6.

Cross-functional teamwork is an important organizational and behavioral best practice for a tester in the SCRUM team that should have also been practiced when using the sequential model. Cross-functional teamwork means that all team members, regardless of their functional roles, collaborate and share their skills and knowledge to achieve a common goal. In the context of testing, this means that testing is not seen as a separate activity or phase, but as an integral part of the development process. All team members contribute to testing in various ways, such as:

• Involving people with the test strategy, test planning and execution as well as test reporting. This can help ensure that the testing activities are aligned with the business objectives, the user needs, and the technical requirements. It can also help improve the test coverage, the test quality, and the test efficiency.
• Sharing the responsibility for testing among the team members. This can help reduce the workload and the dependency on a single tester or a testing team. It can also help increase the feedback and the communication among the team members, and foster a culture of quality and learning.
• Leveraging the diverse skills and perspectives of the team members. This can help enhance the test design and the test execution by applying different techniques, tools, and approaches. It can also help identify and address the risks, the issues, and the opportunities for improvement from various angles. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 1.2.1, page 9; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, page 16.

As an agile tester, you should work together with the developer, suggesting reasons why the tests are failing. This is an example of the agile principle of collaboration and communication within the team, as well as the agile testing practice of early and frequent feedback. By working together with the developer, you can help to identify and resolve the root causes of the test failures, as well as share your testing knowledge and perspective. This can lead to faster and better quality delivery of the user story, as well as improved team relationships and trust.

Option A is not a good action, because reviewing and improving the design of the user story is not the tester’s responsibility, and it may not address the test failures. Option B is also not a good action, because creating bug reports for blocked tests is not an agile way of handling issues, and it may create unnecessary overhead and waste. Option D is not a good action, because it does not help to unblock the current user story, and it may distract you from the sprint goal and the team’s focus.

References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Section 2.3.1, page 171; ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Sample Exam Questions, Question 2.3.1-2, page 82

Acceptance test criteria are the conditions that a user story must satisfy to be accepted by the customer or the stakeholder. They are usually derived from the user story and its acceptance scenarios, and they should cover the functional and non-functional requirements of the user story. Acceptance test criteria should be clear, concise, testable, and agreed upon by the team and the customer or the stakeholder.

In this case, the user story describes the business rule for approving a loan request based on the customer’s income, repayment history, and loan amount. The user story also specifies the roles of the customer assistant and the bank manager in the process. Therefore, the acceptance test criteria should verify that the user story is implemented correctly and that the system behaves as expected for different scenarios and inputs.

The following test cases can be treated as acceptance test criteria for the above user story:

• As a customer assistant I can log in to the system and check the history of the customer account for the last year. This test case verifies that the customer assistant can access the system and view the customer’s income information, which is one of the factors for approving the loan request.
• As a customer assistant I can log in to the system and check the history of the customer debts and repayments. This test case verifies that the customer assistant can access the system and view the customer’s repayment history, which is another factor for approving the loan request.
• As a bank manager I can log in to the system and receive the information of all requests waiting for approval. This test case verifies that the bank manager can access the system and see the list of loan requests that have been prepared by the customer assistant, and that the system provides the necessary information for each request.
• As a bank manager I can log in to the system and decide whether to approve a loan for a customer. This test case verifies that the bank manager can access the system and perform the approval action for a loan request, and that the system applies the business rule correctly and updates the status of the request accordingly.

The following test cases cannot be treated as acceptance test criteria for the above user story:

• As a customer assistant I can log in to the system and change my password. This test case is not related to the user story, as it does not verify any of the functional or non-functional requirements of the user story. It is a generic test case that applies to any user of the system, not specific to the customer assistant role or the loan approval process.
• As a bank manager I can log in to the system within 10 seconds. This test case is not related to the user story, as it does not verify any of the functional or non-functional requirements of the user story. It is a performance test case that applies to any user of the system, not specific to the bank manager role or the loan approval process.

References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.3.1, pages 15-16; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, pages 2 and 3.

 Exploratory testing is a type of testing that involves simultaneous learning, test design, and test execution. It is suitable for Quadrant 3 because it is business facing and product critique, meaning that it focuses on the user’s perspective and the quality attributes of the product. Exploratory testing can help discover new risks, requirements, and defects that may not be covered by other test levels and test types. It can also provide feedback on the usability, functionality, and reliability of the product. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.3.2, page 17; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, page 23.

 Scrum is an agile development approach that incorporates the following practices:

• a project is divided into iterations called sprints, which are typically 2-4 weeks long
• each sprint starts with a planning meeting, where the team selects a subset of user stories from the product backlog to work on
• each sprint ends with a review meeting, where the team demonstrates the potentially releasable/shippable product increment to the stakeholders and collects feedback
• each sprint also includes a retrospective meeting, where the team reflects on the process and identifies areas for improvement123 References: 1: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus, Section 2.1, Agile Software Development1; 2: ASTQB Agile Tester Certification Resources, Section 2.1, Agile Software Development2; 3: What is Agile? | Atlassian3

According to the ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, a retrospective is a meeting held at the end of each iteration or release, where the agile team reflects on what went well and what can be improved in their processes, practices, and interactions. The purpose of a retrospective is to identify and implement actions for continuous improvement, and to foster a culture of learning and collaboration. Therefore, the items that would be the most effective to generate discussions on process improvement are those that are related to the team’s performance, challenges, feedback, and suggestions. Option D is the least effective item to generate discussions on process improvement, as it is a personal attack on one of the team members, and it does not offer any constructive feedback or solution. This kind of item can create a negative and hostile atmosphere in the retrospective, and damage the trust and respect among the team members. Option A is an effective item to generate discussions on processimprovement, as it identifies a problem with the build process that affects the team’s efficiency and quality, and it can lead to finding ways to optimize the build process or to mitigate the delays. Option B is also an effective item to generate discussions on process improvement, as it reveals a discrepancy between the team’s estimation and actual effort, and it can lead to analyzing the root causes of the deviation and to improving the estimation techniques or the team’s capacity. Option C is also an effective item to generate discussions on process improvement, as it highlights a weakness in the automation tests that hinders the team’s ability to debug and fix the failures, and it can lead to enhancing the automation tests with better logging mechanisms or to reviewing the automation strategy. References: ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.1.1, page 14; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.1.2, page 15; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.1, page 16; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.2, page 17.

The test charter for the exploratory testing session is focused on buying a bus ticket, not a parking ticket. Therefore, any defect related to the payment for parking ticket is out of scope for the given test charter. The other defects are related to the functionality, usability, or reliability of buying a bus ticket, which are in scope for the test charter. References: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.3.2 Exploratory Testing1, Section 2.3.2.1 Test Charter2; ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 3.2, 2017, Definition of Test Charter3

1: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.3.2 Exploratory Testing 2: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus, Version 2014, Section 2.3.2.1 Test Charter 3: [ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms, Version 3.2, 2017, Definition of Test Charter]