You have executed an automated test suite for a product that was released into production. Although all the tests passed, there was a major failure in production in an area that was covered well by your automated tests.You have run the automated tests again and one of the tests is now failing and this is directly related to the production defect that was raised. You decide to run the automated test suite again on the same version of the SUT and the test now passes.What SHOULD you do now to verify the validity of the automated tests?
Answer(s): A
The correct action is to investigate the intermittently failing test to determine why it sometimes passes and sometimes fails. Intermittent behavior suggests instability in the test or the SUT, which undermines trust in the automation results. Removing the test without understanding the cause would be premature and risky.
You are the TAE for an Agile project which has six sprints for the current release. Sprint five is underway and the automated regression suite is due to start later today.You have re-examined the results from the automated regression runs for the past four sprints. You notice that two test cases both reported a pass for sprints 1 and 4 but a fail for sprints 2 and 3. The failures have gone undetected and are therefore unexplained. Both test cases are closely coupled with other tests in the suite.What course of action SHOULD you take?
Answer(s): C
The best action is to quarantine the test cases, run the regression suite without them, and conduct root cause analysis in parallel. This avoids potential disruption to the regression run while addressing the unexplained and inconsistent behavior of the test cases, helping to restore trust and stability in the automation suite.
You have implemented a keyword-driven scripting framework, which uses a test execution tool to run the tests. This has been in use for the past year and all of the teams now use this framework as the standard approach for test execution.The teams all work on different aspects of the SUT and they have all experienced significant benefits in the use of this scripting framework. However, on closer examination, you have discovered that there are numerous instances where the teams have the same functionality to test but are using different keywords.One of your objectives for improvement is to create consistency among the teams.What is the BEST way to handle this situation?
Answer(s): D
Creating a central library of keywords with consistent definitions is the best way to ensure standardization and reuse across teams. This improves maintainability, reduces duplication, and aligns the teams under a common framework, while still preserving the benefits they've already experienced.
You are testing a major enhancement to an air traffic control user interface. You have use of a sophisticated pre-production test environment, created specifically for large scale automated regression, performance and security testing. The window for regression testing is limited and must successfully conclude, with no major regressions remaining, before the non-functional testing starts.You have been using the same version of the TAS for the last few releases, each time completing the automated regression test suite in a single overnight run. However, due to the latest enhancements for the SUT, you believe there is a risk that the test suite may no longer complete overnight and therefore delay performance and security testing.Which option would be the BEST and MOST cost-efficient approach to mitigate this risk?
Analyzing the regression test suite to remove duplication and redundancy is the most cost-efficient and effective approach to mitigate the risk. It optimizes test execution time without requiring additional environments or extended schedules, helping ensure the suite still completes overnight within the available window.
Your TAS has been running successfully on a Windows/GUI based SUT for some years. The SUT has undergone minimal change over the years to maintain business as usual, deploying six-monthly releases for minor enhancements and bug fixes using a waterfall lifecycle.The TAS has not changed at all during this period. The current project for the SUT will be using the Scrum methodology to deliver a more modern, competitive, user interface. It is in the release planning stage with an agreed release backlog and set of sprints outlined.The move from lengthy waterfall releases to shorter sprints has led you to conduct a review of the current TAS to make sure it is robust and fully optimised for the timescale challenges of the new project.What two steps would be BEST to undertake during the review?a) Ensure that new automation code is using the same naming conventions as existing code. b) Perform a full regression run in Sprint 1 to identify what improvements could be made to the TAS for future sprints.c) Ensure that the TAS is using the latest libraries for the operating system. d) Review the functions that act upon the controls for the GUI for possible consolidation. e) Involve the test team to see what ease-of-use improvements they would like to see made to the TAS.
Reviewing the functions that act upon the GUI controls for possible consolidation (d) helps improve maintainability and efficiency, which is vital when transitioning to shorter sprint cycles. Involving the test team (e) allows the TAS to be adapted for greater usability and productivity in an Agile context, aligning the solution with real user needs and making it more effective in the new development environment.
Post your Comments and Discuss ISTQB CTAL-TAE exam prep with other Community members:
Our website is free, but we have to fight against AI bots and content theft. We're sorry for the inconvenience caused by these security measures. You can access the rest of the CTAL-TAE content, but please register or login to continue.