CTFL_Syll2018 Exam Dumps : ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (Syllabus 2018)

Statement testing is part of structure-based testing, which is a type of testing that verifies the internal structure or implementation of a software system, such as code, architecture, design, etc. Statement testing is a structure-based test technique that involves testing every statement in the code at least once to ensure that there are no syntax errors, logical errors, or hidden defects in the code. Statement testing requires some knowledge of the internal structure or implementation of the software system; it focuses on how the system does what it does rather than what it does.

The other types of testing mentioned in the question are not related to statement testing because they do not verify the internal structure or implementation of a software system. For example:

• A. Experience-based testing: This type of testing relies on the skills, knowledge, intuition, and creativity of testers to design and execute test cases based on their experience with similar systems or situations.
• B. Decision testing: This type of testing verifies every decision point in the code by testing all possible outcomes or branches of each decision point to ensure that there are no logical errors or hidden defects in the code.
• C. Specification-based testing: This type of testing verifies the external behavior or functionality of a software system based on its requirements, specifications, design documents, or other sources of information.

You can find more information about statement testing and structure-based testing in [A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus], Chapter 4, Section 4.3.

Testing tools can be used by both developers and testers for different purposes and at different stages of the software development life cycle. For example, developers can use tools such as unit testing frameworks, code coverage tools, debugging tools, static analysis tools, etc., to improve the quality of their code and find defects early. Testers can use tools such as test management tools, test design tools, test execution tools, test data preparation tools, performance testing tools, etc., to support their testing activities and increase their efficiency and effectiveness. The use of testing tools does not necessarily imply test automation, which is the use of software to perform or support test activities that would otherwise require manual intervention. Test automation is a complex and costly process that requires careful planning, design, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation. The use of testing tools also does not change the role of the test team, which is still responsible for defining the test strategy, designing the test cases, analyzing the test results, reporting the defects, etc. You can find more information about testing tools and test automation in A Study Guide to the ISTQB® Foundation Level 2018 Syllabus, Chapter 61.

Managing the incidents in a spreadsheet posted on the intranet is the best option for a QA manager of a start-up company who needs to implement within a week a low cost incident management tool. A spreadsheet is a simple and flexible tool that can be used to record, track, and report incidents. Posting the spreadsheet on the intranet can make it accessible and visible to the relevant stakeholders. This option can be implemented quickly and cheaply, without requiring much training or maintenance3 suggests this as follows:

A spreadsheet is a common tool that can be used for incident management, especially for small or simple projects. A spreadsheet can be used to create an incident report template that includes the necessary information and fields for each incident. The spreadsheet can also be used to sort, filter, group, or analyze the incidents based on various criteria. The spreadsheet can be shared or published on a network or web location that can be accessed by the project team and other stakeholders.

A, C, and D are not good options for a QA manager of a start-up company who needs to implement within a week a low cost incident management tool. Managing the incidents through E-mails and phone calls (A) is not a good option, as it can be inefficient, unreliable, and inconsistent. E-mails and phone calls can be easily lost, overlooked, or forgotten, and they do not provide a centralized or structured way of recording, tracking, or reporting incidents. Purchasing and deploying an incident management tool © is not a good option, as it can be expensive, time-consuming, and complex. An incident management tool may require licensing fees, installation costs, configuration efforts, training sessions, and maintenance support. Documenting incidents on a large board in the lab (D) is not a good option, as it can be impractical, insecure, and incomplete. A large board in the lab may not have enough space or structure to document all the incidents in detail, and it may not be accessible or visible to all the stakeholders. A large board in the lab may also expose confidential or sensitive information to unauthorized people.