BCS CTFL4 Exam Dumps

Exploratory testing is an experience-based test technique in which testers dynamically design and execute tests based on their knowledge, intuition, and learning of the software system, without following predefined test scripts or test cases. Exploratory testing can be conducted following a session-based approach, which is a structured way of managing and measuring exploratory testing. In a session-based approach, the testers perform uninterrupted test sessions, usually lasting between 60 and 120 minutes, with a specific charter or goal, and document the issues detected, the test coverage achieved, and the time spent in session sheets. Session sheets are records of the test activities, results, and observations during a test session, which can be used for reporting, debriefing, and learning purposes. The other statements are false, because:

Exploratory testing is not a test technique in which testers explore the requirements specification to detect non testable requirements, but rather a test technique in which testers explore the software system to detect functional and non-functional defects, as well as to learn new information, risks, or opportunities. Non testable requirements are requirements that are ambiguous, incomplete, inconsistent, or not verifiable, which can affect the quality and effectiveness of the testing process. Non testable requirements can be detected by applying static testing techniques, such as reviews or inspections, to the requirements specification, before the software system is developed or tested.

Exploratory testing is not a test technique used by testers during informal code reviews to find defects by exploring the source code, but rather a test technique used by testers during dynamic testing to find defects by exploring the behavior and performance of the software system, without examining the source code. Informal code reviews are static testing techniques, in which the source code is analyzed by one or more reviewers, without following a formal process or using a checklist, to identify defects, violations, or improvements. Informal code reviews are usually performed by developers or peers, not by testers.

In exploratory testing, testers usually do not produce scripted tests and establish bidirectional traceability between these tests and the items of the test basis, but rather produce unscripted tests and adapt them based on the feedback and the findings of the testing process. Scripted tests are tests that are designed and documented in advance, with predefined inputs, outputs, and expected results, and are executed according to a test plan or a test procedure. Bidirectional traceability is the ability to trace both forward and backward the relationships between the items of the test basis, such as the requirements, the design, the risks, etc., and the test artifacts, such as the test cases, the test results, the defects, etc. Scripted tests and bidirectional traceability are usually associated with more formal and structured testing approaches, such as specification-based or structure-based test techniques, not with exploratory testing.Reference: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 2.2.3, Experience-based Test Design Techniques1

ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Exploratory Testing, Session-based Testing, Session Sheet, Non Testable Requirement, Static Testing, Informal Review, Dynamic Testing, Scripted Testing, Bidirectional Traceability2

Test automation allows you to produce tests that are less subject to human errors, as they can execute predefined test scripts or test cases with consistent inputs, outputs, and expected results. Test automation can also reduce the manual effort and time required to execute repetitive or tedious tests, such as regression tests, performance tests, or data-driven tests. Test automation does not demonstrate the absence of defects, as it can only verify the expected behavior of the system under test, not the unexpected or unknown behavior. Test automation does not avoid performing exploratory testing, as exploratory testing is a valuable technique to discover new information, risks, or defects that are not covered by automated tests. Test automation does not increase test process efficiency by facilitating management of defects, as defect management is a separate activity that involves reporting, tracking, analyzing, and resolving defects, which may or may not be related to automated tests.Reference: ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level (CTFL) v4.0 sources and documents:

ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level Syllabus v4.0, Chapter 3.3.1, Test Automation1

ISTQB Glossary of Testing Terms v4.0, Test Automation2

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.

Reference= 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.

Good testing practice dictates that each test level (e.g., unit testing, integration testing, system testing) should have distinct test objectives aligned with the phase of the software development lifecycle it addresses. This ensures that testing is effective and relevant at each stage. According to the ISTQB CTFL Syllabus v4.0, establishing clear test objectives that are consistent with the development phase helps in achieving specific goals and improving the overall quality of the software product.

A new navigation system compared with a previous system is the most suitable application for testing by use cases, because it involves a high level of interaction between the user and the system, and the expected behavior and outcomes of the system are based on the user's needs and goals. Use cases can help to specify the functional requirements of the new navigation system, such as the ability to enter a destination, select a route, follow the directions, receive alerts, etc. Use cases can also help to compare the accuracy and usability of the new system with the previous system, by defining the success and failure scenarios, the preconditions and postconditions, and the alternative flows of each use case. Use cases can also help to design and execute test cases that cover the main and exceptional paths of each use case, and to verify the satisfaction of the user's expectations.

The other options are not the most suitable applications for testing by use cases, because they do not involve a high level of interaction between the user and the system, or the expected behavior and outcomes of the system are not based on the user's needs and goals. A billing system used to calculate monthly charge based on a large number of subscriber parameters is more suitable for testing by data-driven testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and performance of a system or component by using a large set of input and output data. The ability of an antivirus package to detect and quarantine a new threat is more suitable for testing by exploratory testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and security of a system or component by using an informal and flexible approach, based on the tester's experience and intuition. The suitability and performance of a multimedia (audio video based) system to a new operating system is more suitable for testing by compatibility testing, which is a technique for testing the functionality and performance of a system or component by using different hardware, software, or network environments.Reference= CTFL 4.0 Syllabus, Section 3.1.1, page 28-29; Section 4.1.1, page 44-45; Section 4.2.1, page 47-48.