ISTQB CTAL-TTA Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Analysis:

To determine the correct keyword-driven input table for testing the enhancement to the social media application, we need to ensure the table adequately covers the following scenarios:

Adding existing members to a group.

Attempting to add non-existing members to a group and handling the error.

Removing members from a group.

Deleting groups only if no members are attached.

A. (Image A) - Assuming Image A correctly represents these scenarios.

Adding Members: The table should include steps to add both valid (existing) and invalid (non-existing) members to a group, ensuring the application correctly handles both scenarios.

Removing Members: The table should include steps to remove members from a group.

Deleting Groups: The table should include a scenario where a group with no members is deleted successfully.

References:

The ISTQB CTAL-TTA syllabus and standard keyword-driven testing practices emphasize the importance of comprehensive test coverage for new enhancements.

Sources:

ISTQB-CTAL-TTA Syllabus

General knowledge on keyword-driven testing.

Once existing test cases have been identified for refactoring, the next step is typically to make changes to the internal structure of these tests to improve their maintainability. This involves revising the code or scripts to make them cleaner, more efficient, and easier to understand, which helps in maintaining them over time as the software evolves. This process may also involve updating test data or dependencies to ensure that the tests remain robust and reliable .

To determine the percentage of decision testing coverage achieved by the given suite of test cases, we need to analyze the decisions and outcomes in the provided logic.

Detailed Analysis

Identify all decisions in the logic:

IF account number is valid

IF customer account is active

IF oldBalance < zero

IF balance now >= zero

IF account holder is VIP customer

Calculate the number of unique decisions:

There are 5 unique decision points in the logic.

Determine the possible outcomes for each decision:

IF account number is valid → 2 outcomes (True, False)

IF customer account is active → 2 outcomes (True, False)

IF oldBalance < zero → 2 outcomes (True, False)

IF balance now >= zero → 2 outcomes (True, False)

IF account holder is VIP customer → 2 outcomes (True, False)

Test Cases Analysis

Test Case A

Account number valid → True

Account is active → True

OldBalance = -100 → True (less than zero)

Balance now = +200 → True (greater than zero)

Not a VIP customer → False

Test Case B

Account number valid → True

Account is active → True

OldBalance = -100 → True (less than zero)

Balance now = -50 → False (less than zero)

Is a VIP customer → True

Coverage Calculation

To calculate the decision coverage, we need to see how many of the possible outcomes are covered by the test cases:

IF account number is valid (True in both A and B, False not tested)

IF customer account is active (True in both A and B, False not tested)

IF oldBalance < zero (True in both A and B, False not tested)

IF balance now >= zero (True in A, False in B, both outcomes tested)

IF account holder is VIP customer (False in A, True in B, both outcomes tested)

Out of the 10 possible outcomes (2 for each decision), the given test cases cover 6 outcomes:

Account number valid → True

Account number valid → False (not covered)

Customer account active → True

Customer account active → False (not covered)

OldBalance < zero → True

OldBalance < zero → False (not covered)

Balance now >= zero → True

Balance now >= zero → False

Account holder is VIP → True

Account holder is VIP → False

Thus, 6 out of the 10 outcomes are covered by the test cases, giving us a decision coverage percentage of:

Decision Coverage=(610)×100%=60%\text{Decision Coverage} = \left(\frac{6}{10}\right) \times 100\% = 60\%Decision Coverage=(106​)×100%=60%

References:

The sample questions and answers provided in the ISTQB CTAL-TTA documentation confirm this calculation method and the expected coverage percentage for similar logical scenarios​​​​​​.