CTAL-TA_Syll2019 Exam Dumps and Practice Questions

The specification does not clearly define the dependencies between the power unit and the body style options. For example, it is not clear if the user can select a hybrid power unit and then choose a saloon body style, or if the hybrid option is only available after selecting a hatchback body style. Similarly, it is not clear if the user can select an SUV body style and then choose a hybrid power unit, or if the SUV option is only available with petrol or diesel power units. These dependencies affect the usability of the site, as they may confuse the user or limit their choices. The specification should specify the valid combinations of power unit and body style, and how the site will handle invalid or unavailable combinations.Reference=ISTQB Certified Tester Advanced Level Syllabus Technical Test Analyst, page 80, section 5.3.2.1.

Low-level test cases are more suitable for testing software that controls the braking mechanism for commuter trains, as they provide more detail and specificity for verifying the functionality and safety of the system1.Low-level test cases also use predefined data, which is more reliable and consistent than tester-created data, and can be easily traced to the test conditions and requirements2.High-level test cases are more abstract and vague, and may not cover all the possible scenarios and risks involved in testing such a critical system3.

Reference=1:Test Case Design: a Guide for QA Engineers With Examples2:How to Write Test Cases in Software Testing with Examples3:Test Case vs Test Scenario -- Difference Between Them

The correct answer is D) Automate the testing for the credit card exploratory tests so they can be used for confirmation testing after the defect is fixed.

A) Enter your exploratory test cases with detailed test steps into the Test Management System

This is incorrect because entering the test cases into the Test Management System is not enough to document and track the exploratory testing process. The test cases should also include the expected results, actual results, and defects found during the testing. Moreover, the test cases should be organized into a clear and logical structure that reflects the test charter and scope.

B) Close the session and start a new session with a new charter

This is incorrect because closing and starting a new session with a new charter would mean losing all the information and data collected during the previous session. This would make it difficult to resume and continue the testing process from where it left off. Instead, it would be better to use a consistent and stable session with a single charter that covers all the requirements and features of the system.

C) Continue the session and conduct the testing for debit cards

This is incorrect because continuing the session and conducting only one type of card (debit) would not provide a comprehensive coverage of all possible scenarios and outcomes of accepting credit cards. It would also limit the scope of testing to only one aspect of payment processing, which may not reflect all the business rules, validations, exceptions, or integrations involved in this domain.

D) Automate the testing for the credit card exploratory tests so they can be used for confirmation testing after the defect is fixed

This is correct because automating some or all of the exploratory tests can help to save time, effort, and resources by reducing manual effort and increasing efficiency. It can also help to improve accuracy, consistency, and reliability by eliminating human errors and biases. Moreover, automating some or all of the exploratory tests can enable them to be reused for confirmation testing after fixing any defects found during exploratory testing. Confirmation testing is a type of functional testing that verifies that all requirements are met by performing regression tests on previously tested functionality1.

Test set (i) is the best option as it tests the boundary condition of a salary of less than 20,000 and being married, with a varying number of children including the boundary value of three children. This test set covers the minimum and maximum values for the salary and the number of children, as well as the nominal values. The other test sets do not test the boundary value of the salary or the number of children fully, as they either omit or repeat some values.Reference=

ISTQB Certified Tester Advanced Level Syllabus Technical Test Analyst1, page 2

Boundary Value Analysis and Equivalence Partitioning Testing2, section ''Boundary Value Analysis''

Equivalence Partitioning Method3, section ''Example 1: Equivalence and Boundary Value''

Testing pairs of combinations is a technique that reduces the number of test cases by testing only two factors at a time, instead of testing all possible combinations. Testing pairs of combinations is based on the assumption that most defects are caused by interactions of at most two factors. Testing pairs of combinations can be applied to this problem using the installation environments, which are the browsers, the operating systems, and the languages. By using testing pairs of combinations, the number of test cases will be lower than exhaustive testing, which would require testing every combination of factors. The formula for calculating the number of test cases for testing pairs of combinations is:

N = P * (P - 1) / 2

where N is the number of test cases, and P is the number of values for each factor. In this problem, P is 4, as there are four browsers, four operating systems, and four languages. Therefore, the number of test cases for testing pairs of combinations is:

N = 4 * (4 - 1) / 2 N = 4 * 3 / 2 N = 12Reference=

ISTQB Certified Tester Advanced Level Syllabus Technical Test Analyst1, page 2

Pairwise Software Testing - GeeksforGeeks2, section ''Introduction''

Pairwise Testing: A Best Practice That Isn't3, section ''Pairwise Testing''