New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

ISTQB CT-TAE Exam - Topic 1 Question 14 Discussion

Actual exam question for ISTQB's CT-TAE exam
Question #: 14
Topic #: 1
[All CT-TAE Questions]

A defect in a SUT has been resolved and validated by an automated defect re-test in the current release of the software. This retest has now been added to the automated regression test suite.

Which statement BEST describes a reason why this defect could re-occur in future releases?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Paris at Aug 08, 2023, 06:05 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Mariann
3 months ago
D could be a problem too, a narrow scope might miss edge cases.
upvoted 0 times
...
Douglass
3 months ago
Wait, are we really saying automated tests can’t catch everything? That’s surprising!
upvoted 0 times
...
Dexter
4 months ago
A is a valid concern, but I think it's more about the test suite's scope.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marjory
4 months ago
I disagree, B is the real issue. If config management is weak, anything can happen.
upvoted 0 times
...
Raina
4 months ago
C makes sense, if the tests aren't run consistently, issues can slip through.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reyes
4 months ago
Option D sounds familiar, but I wonder if a narrower scope really means the defect could reoccur. I might need to think about that one more.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kayleigh
4 months ago
I feel like option C makes sense too, especially if the regression suite isn't run consistently. I saw a similar question in our practice tests.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sunny
5 months ago
I think option B could be a strong contender since poor configuration management can lead to issues in future releases, but I need to double-check that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tayna
5 months ago
I remember discussing how automated tests might not catch all edge cases, so option A seems plausible but I'm not entirely sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josefa
5 months ago
I'm a little confused by the options. Action Plans and Financial Goals don't seem relevant to this scenario. I'm leaning towards either Flows or Actionable Relationship Center, but I'll need to review the details more closely.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yoko
5 months ago
I'm pretty confident I know the difference between verification and validation, so I think I can handle this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malcom
10 months ago
I'm just gonna throw this out there: what if the defect is secretly a living, breathing entity, and it keeps escaping the automated tests like some kind of software Houdini? Now that's a horror movie I'd watch!
upvoted 0 times
Nickie
9 months ago
C: D) The automated regression test suite has a narrower scope of functionality
upvoted 0 times
...
Karon
9 months ago
B: But what if the defect is really just playing tricks on us, like a software ghost?
upvoted 0 times
...
Nana
10 months ago
A: A) Automated defect confirmation testing is not effective at confirming that the resolved defect will continue to work in future releases
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Winifred
10 months ago
Hmm, B seems like the culprit to me. If the code archives aren't synced up properly, who knows what could be lurking in those shadows, waiting to pounce. Gotta keep those version control ducks in a row!
upvoted 0 times
...
Jaime
10 months ago
Ooh, tricky one! I'd have to say D is the answer. If the regression suite's scope is too narrow, it might not be hitting all the right areas. Gotta cast a wide net, folks!
upvoted 0 times
Elenor
8 months ago
A: Absolutely, we need to be thorough to ensure the software is stable and reliable.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ciara
8 months ago
C: Totally, we can't afford to miss any areas that could cause the defect to re-occur in future releases.
upvoted 0 times
...
Owen
8 months ago
B: Yeah, I agree. It's important to have a comprehensive test suite to catch any potential issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Franchesca
8 months ago
A: I think D is the answer too. We need to make sure we cover all functionalities in the regression tests.
upvoted 0 times
...
Luann
8 months ago
D: Absolutely, a broader scope in the regression test suite is crucial for catching re-occurring defects.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sommer
9 months ago
C: Definitely, we need to ensure thorough testing for future releases.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephania
9 months ago
B: Yeah, I agree. If it's too narrow, we might miss potential defects.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vilma
10 months ago
A: I think D makes sense. We need to cover all functionalities in the regression test suite.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Natalie
10 months ago
I'm gonna have to go with A on this one. Automated tests can be great, but they don't always catch everything. You need those human eyes to really confirm the fix is legit.
upvoted 0 times
...
Julianna
10 months ago
But what if the regression test suite is not run consistently for future releases? That could also lead to the defect re-occurring, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Devora
10 months ago
Option C seems the most logical choice. If the regression suite isn't consistently run, that's a clear path for the defect to resurface. Gotta keep those tests churning, you know?
upvoted 0 times
Tamekia
10 months ago
Definitely, we can't afford to miss any potential defects that could resurface.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ressie
10 months ago
I agree, consistency is key when it comes to running regression tests.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Amie
11 months ago
I agree with you, Nickole. If the testing is not thorough, the defect might slip through again.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nickole
11 months ago
I think the defect could re-occur if the automated defect confirmation testing is not effective.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel