BCS Exam TAE Topic 3 Question 38 Discussion

Actual exam question for BCS's ISTQB Certified Tester Advanced Level - Test Automation Engineer exam

Question #: 38
Topic #: 3

[All ISTQB Certified Tester Advanced Level - Test Automation Engineer Questions]

Consider A TAS for testing a desktop application via its GUI. All the test cases of the automated test suite contain the same identical sequences of steps at the beginning (to create the necessary objects when doing a preliminary configuration of the test environment and at the end (to remove everything created --specifically for the test itself during the preliminary configuration of the test environment). All automated test cases use the same set of assertion functions from a shared library, for verifying the values in the GUI fields ( e.g text boxes).

What is the BEST recommendation for improving the TAS?

AImplementing keywords with higher level of granularity

BImproving the architecture of the application in order to improve its testability

CAdopting a set of standard verification methods for use by all automated tests

DImplementing standard setup and teardown functions at test case level

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

by Aliza at Apr 12, 2024, 03:01 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium TAE Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Beata

9 days ago

That's a fair point, but I'm not sure that's the best approach here. Improving the app architecture is a huge undertaking, and it might not be the most practical solution for this particular TAS. I still think option D is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Raymon

11 days ago

You guys make a good point, but I'm actually leaning more towards option B. Improving the architecture of the application itself could really help with the testability. If the app is designed with testability in mind, a lot of these issues might just go away.

upvoted 0 times

...

Paulene

12 days ago

Haha, yeah, the verification methods are crucial here. I mean, can you imagine if every test case was using its own custom assertions? That would be a nightmare to maintain. Option C is definitely the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Maurine

13 days ago

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. While the setup and teardown functions are a good target for improvement, I think option C, adopting a set of standard verification methods, might be an even better solution. That way, we can ensure consistency in how we're checking the values in the GUI fields.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chantell

15 days ago

I agree, the duplication of the setup and teardown steps is a big problem. I think option D, implementing standard setup and teardown functions at the test case level, is the best recommendation here. It will help us avoid repeating the same code across all the test cases.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lore

16 days ago

Hey guys, this question on the TAS for the desktop application seems pretty straightforward. The common setup and teardown sequences in all the test cases are a clear sign of duplication, and we need to find a way to improve the efficiency of the TAS.

upvoted 0 times

...