Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

ISTQB Exam ATM Topic 3 Question 56 Discussion

Actual exam question for ISTQB's ATM exam
Question #: 56
Topic #: 3
[All ATM Questions]

Assume you are the Test Manager in charge of independent testing for avionics applications. You are in charge of testing for a project to implement three different CSCI (Computer Software Configuration Item):

- a BOOT-X CSCI that must be certified at level B of the DO-178B standard

- a DIAG-X CSCI that must be certified at level C of the DO-178B standard

- a DRIV-X CSCI that must be certified at level A of the DO-178B standard

These are three different software modules written in C language to run on a specific hardware platform.

You have been asked to select a single code coverage tool to perform the mandatory code coverage measurements, in order to meet the structural coverage criteria prescribed by the DO-178B standard. This tool must be qualified as a verification tool under DO-178B.

Since there are significant budget constraints to purchase this tool, you are evaluating an opensource tool that is able to provide different types of code coverage. This tool meets perfectly your technical needs in terms of the programming language and the specific hardware platform (it supports also the specific C-compiler).

The source code of the tool is available.

Your team could easily customize the tool to meet the project needs. This tool is not qualified as a verification tool under the DO-178B.

Which of the following are the three main concerns related to that open-source tool selection?

K4 3 credits (2 credits out of 3 credits correct, 1 credit point)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A, C, F

Contribute your Thoughts:

Ena
2 months ago
I also think the licensing scheme of the tool should be considered to ensure it is compatible with the confidentiality needs of the avionics company.
upvoted 0 times
...
Farrah
2 months ago
Good point, Thea. And I'm sure the installation procedure is the least of their concerns. They've got bigger fish to fry, like making sure this open-source tool is actually up to the task.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thea
2 months ago
Haha, well, I guess they don't need to worry about the RAM requirements. Avionics hardware is pretty beefy, right? But seriously, the qualification costs could be a deal-breaker if they're on a tight budget.
upvoted 0 times
Tamra
2 months ago
E) Does the tool require a system with more than 4GB of RAM memory?
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephane
2 months ago
C) What are the costs to qualify the tool as a verification tool under the DO-178B?
upvoted 0 times
...
Latrice
2 months ago
A) Does the tool support all the types of code coverage required from the three levels A, B, C of the DO-178B standard?
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Murray
2 months ago
I agree, the coverage support is crucial. But the licensing and confidentiality aspects are also important for an avionics project. Can't have any shady open-source stuff here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arlette
2 months ago
The key concern here is whether the open-source tool can provide the required code coverage types for the different DO-178B levels. That's a must-have, no matter how user-friendly or easy to install it is.
upvoted 0 times
Ellsworth
2 months ago
F) Is the licensing scheme of the tool compatible with the confidentiality needs of the avionics company?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ona
2 months ago
C) What are the costs to qualify the tool as a verification tool under the DO-178B?
upvoted 0 times
...
Edgar
2 months ago
A) Does the tool support all the types of code coverage required from the three levels A, B, C of the DO-178B standard?
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Antonio
3 months ago
I agree with Adelina. Another concern could be the costs to qualify the tool as a verification tool under the DO-178B.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adelina
3 months ago
I think the main concern is if the tool supports all types of code coverage required by the DO-178B standard.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77