CTFL-AT Exam Dumps - iSQI Agile Tester Questions and Answers

Risk-based testing is a technique that prioritizes testing activities based on the level of risk associated with each feature or requirement. The level of risk is usually calculated by multiplying the probability and impact of each risk. The higher the risk level, the more testing effort should be allocated to mitigate the risk. In this case, the risk level for each option is as follows: A. Risk level = Low x Low = Low B. Risk level = Low x High = Medium C. Risk level = High x High = High D. Risk level = High x Low = Medium Therefore, the highest risk level is C, followed by B and D, and then A. The User Story for the Operator-Instructions module should be tested according to this risk order, starting with C, then B, then D, and finally A. Hence, the answer is B, as it is the second highest risk level and should be tested after C. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Extension Syllabus1, page 16; ISTQB Agile Tester Sample Exam2, question 18.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

From theCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 1.3The Whole-Team Approach, the benefit of the whole-team approach is:

"All team members, including testers, work together in all project phases. This encourages collaboration and shared responsibility, which leads to the availability of working software and immediate feedback on changes."

Specifically, it is noted:

"One benefit of the whole-team approach is the continuous availability of working, executable software, which can be tested at any point in the iteration."

This makesOption Athe correct answer.

Let’s analyze the others:

Option Brelates toAcceptance Test-Driven Development (ATDD), not the whole-team approach specifically.

Option Cis a benefit ofTDD, not of the whole-team approach.

Option Drefers tocontinuous integration, not directly tied to the whole-team concept.

 According to the ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, one of the key principles of agile testing is that testers are integrated into the agile team and work closely with developers and other stakeholders. However, this does not mean that testers lose their independence or objectivity. Testers should still be able to provide an unbiased view of the quality of the software and challenge the assumptions and decisions made by the team. Therefore, option C is the best way for a test team to keep its independence when working in an agile development environment, as it allows testers to be part of the agile team, but also report to a different manager than the developers, who can support their professional development and ensure their independence. Option A is not a good way to keep independence, as it limits the transparency and collaboration between testers and developers, which are essential for agile testing. Option B is also not a good way to keep independence, as it creates a physical and organizational barrier between the test automation team and the agile development team, which can hinder communication and feedback. Option D is also not a good way to keep independence, as it creates an inconsistency and imbalance between the testers who are co-located with the agile development team and those who are not, which can affect the quality and efficiency of the testing process. References: ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 1.2.1, page 91; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 1.2.2, page 101; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.1.1, page 141; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.1, page 161; ISTQB Tester Foundation Level Agile Tester syllabus, section 2.2.2, page 171.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

FromCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 3.2Test-Driven Development, it states:

"Test-Driven Development (TDD) is a practice where test cases are written before the code is developed. Typically, these tests are automated, and the code is written to make the tests pass."

This directly matchesOption A, making it the correct and complete answer.

Let’s review the other options:

Option Bdescribes atest strategy, not TDD.

Option Cis a definition ofAgile software development, not TDD.

Option Ddescribesexploratory testing, not TDD.

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.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

From theCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 2.1User Stories and Acceptance Criteria, it states:

"Acceptance criteria are defined collaboratively and refined during the conversation to ensure mutual understanding. They may be added or updated as new insights emerge."

This supportsOption D, which reflects how acceptance criteria evolveduring conversations— a key component of the"Card, Conversation, Confirmation"model.

Option Ais incorrect — the user story istestable, especially with the acceptance criterion.

Option Bis false — the story provides clear user value (printed hard copy for daily records).

Option Cis misleading — the Given-When-Then formatsupportsdiscussions; it doesn’t replace them.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation From Exact Extract:

From theCTFL-AT Syllabus v4.0, Section 5.1Agile Retrospectives and Process Improvement, it states:

"Retrospectives are used to reflect on what went well and what could be improved. They should include qualitative insights and quantitative measures such as velocity, burndown charts, and number of stories completed."

Therefore,Option Cis correct, as using metrics to support process improvement is arecommended best practicein retrospectives.

Option Ais incorrect — retrospectivesshould include what went well, not just negatives.

Option Bis inaccurate — not all improvements must be implemented immediately; they areprioritized and plannedbased on capacity and impact.

Option Dis false — retrospectives are heldat the end of every iteration, regardless of story points completed.

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.

The 3C concept of user stories consists of three elements: card, conversation, and confirmation12. The card is a written description of the user story that captures the essence of the feature or functionality from the user’s perspective. The conversation is a dialogue between the product owner and the development team to clarify the details, assumptions, and expectations of the user story. The confirmation is a set of criteria or tests that verify that the user story is implemented correctly and meets the user’s needs12. Therefore, by applying the 3C concept, the correct statement is A, as the conversation should include the acceptance criteria discussion. This will help the team to understand the scope, priority, and value of the user story, as well as the conditions of satisfaction that the product owner expects12. The other statements are incorrect, as they violate the 3C concept. Statement B is wrong, as the card should contain the user story, not the requirements. The user story is a brief and informal way of expressing the user’s goal and benefit, while the requirements are more detailed and specific descriptions of how the software should work. The requirements can be added later as part of the conversation or confirmation12. Statement C is wrong, as the product owner has written a user story, but confirmation is still needed. The confirmation is a vital part of the 3C concept, as it ensures that the user story is testable, measurable, and verifiable. The confirmation also helps to avoid ambiguity, misunderstanding, or disagreement between the product owner and the development team12. Statement D is wrong, as the conversation is required and the team should not start developing without it. The conversation is an essential part of the 3C concept, as it allows the team to ask questions, share ideas, and collaborate with the product owner to refine the user story and reach a shared understanding. The conversation also helps to identify the dependencies, risks, and assumptions that may affect the implementation of the user story12. References: ISTQB Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.2.1, page 16-17; Effective User Stories - 3C’s and INVEST Guide2, Section The 3 C’s (Card, Conversation, Confirmation) of User Stories.

Continuous integration is a practice of integrating code changes frequently and automatically into a shared repository, and running automated tests to verify the integration. Continuous integration can introduce some risks to the testing process, such as:

Testers sometimes have too many builds to test, which reduces the quality of testing. This can happen when the code changes are too frequent or too large, and the testers do not have enough time or resources to test each build thoroughly. This can lead to missed defects, incomplete test coverage, and reduced confidence in the product quality.

Testers sometimes have to deal with unstable or broken builds, which affects the testability of the product. This can happen when the code changes introduce errors or conflicts that cause the build to fail or malfunction. This can waste the testers’ time and effort, and delay the feedback cycle.

Testers sometimes have to cope with changing requirements and priorities, which affects the test planning and execution. This can happen when the stakeholders or customers provide new or modified requirements or feedback during the development cycle. This can require the testers to adapt their test strategy, test cases, and test data accordingly, and to balance the testing of new features and regression testing of existing features. References: ISTQB® Foundation Level Agile Tester Syllabus1, Section 2.2.3, page 14; ISTQB® Glossary of Testing Terms2, version 4.0, page 15.