ISTQB CT-TAE Exam - Topic 1 Question 25 Discussion

Actual exam question for ISTQB's CT-TAE exam

Question #: 25
Topic #: 1

Consider a TAS that uses a keyword-driven framework. The SUT is a web application and there is a large set of keywords available for writing the automated tests that relate to highly specific user actions linked directly to the GUI of the SUT. The automated test written with the keywords are statically analyzed by a custom tool which highlight's repeated instances of identical sequence of keywords. The waiting mechanism implemented by the TAS for a webpage load is based on a synchronous sampling within a given timeout. The TAS allows checking a webpage load every seconds until a timeout value

AChanging the scripting approach to data-driven scripting

BImplementing keywords with a higher level of granularity

CChanging the wait mechanism to explicit hard-coded waits

DEstablishing an error recovery process for TAS and SUT

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

by Glenn at Apr 11, 2024, 09:12 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Robt

3 months ago

Error recovery is definitely needed for robust testing!

upvoted 0 times

...

Tish

3 months ago

Wait, does the synchronous sampling really work well?

upvoted 0 times

...

Cherry

3 months ago

Hard-coded waits? That's a step backwards, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Dorothy

4 months ago

I think implementing higher granularity in keywords is a must.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ashley

4 months ago

Sounds like a solid setup for keyword-driven testing!

upvoted 0 times

...

Ty

4 months ago

I’m leaning towards implementing keywords with higher granularity, as it might help reduce redundancy, but I need to double-check my notes on that.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elvis

4 months ago

I feel like we had a similar question about error recovery processes in class. It seems like a good option, but I can't recall the specifics.

upvoted 0 times

...

Whitley

4 months ago

I think changing the wait mechanism to explicit waits could be a solution, but I’m not entirely confident about how that would affect the overall test execution.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lashaunda

5 months ago

I remember we discussed the importance of keyword granularity in our last practice session, but I'm not sure if it directly relates to this question.

upvoted 0 times

...

Charlette

5 months ago

I'm leaning towards option D - establishing an error recovery process for the TAS and SUT. With a large set of keywords and potential issues with the wait mechanism, having a robust error recovery process could be really important.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kristin

5 months ago

Changing the wait mechanism to explicit hard-coded waits (option C) seems like a good idea to me. The current synchronous sampling approach might be causing some issues, and hard-coded waits could be more reliable.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jesse

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question mentions a lot of specific details about the TAS and SUT, and I'm not sure which option would be the best approach. I might need to re-read the question a few times to fully understand it.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eliseo

5 months ago

This question seems pretty straightforward. I think I'll go with option B - implementing keywords with a higher level of granularity. That should help reduce the repeated sequences and make the tests more maintainable.

upvoted 0 times

...

Quentin

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I know the transport layer protocol and port number need to match, but I'm not sure about the other options. I'll have to think this through carefully.

upvoted 0 times

...

Carmela

5 months ago

The Web Console option sounds promising, but I'm not sure about the other choices. I'll need to do some research on the available tools and commands for this system.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nenita

5 months ago

I'm confident I know the answer to this. The staging environment is designed to closely match production, so that's where the software version is most likely to be the same.

upvoted 0 times

...

Yuki

9 months ago

Wait, did they just say 'keyword-driven framework'? That's so 2010! I bet they're still using a dot-matrix printer, too.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ruth

10 months ago

Establishing an error recovery process for the TAS and SUT sounds like a great idea. Option D could help us handle any unexpected issues more gracefully.

upvoted 0 times

Darrin

8 months ago

Yes, having a plan for error recovery can make our automated tests more robust and reliable.

upvoted 0 times

...

Yuriko

8 months ago

I agree. It's important to be prepared for any errors that may occur during the testing process.

upvoted 0 times

...

Maynard

9 months ago

That's a good point. Having an error recovery process in place can definitely help us handle unexpected issues.

upvoted 0 times

...

Darrin

10 months ago

I'm a big fan of data-driven scripting, so option A is definitely appealing. But I wonder if that would really address the root cause of the repeated keyword sequences.

upvoted 0 times

Quentin

8 months ago

C) Changing the wait mechanism to explicit hard-coded waits

upvoted 0 times

...

Claribel

8 months ago

B) Implementing keywords with a higher level of granularity

upvoted 0 times

...

Verdell

9 months ago

C) Changing the wait mechanism to explicit hard-coded waits

upvoted 0 times

...

Evan

9 months ago

A) Changing the scripting approach to data-driven scripting

upvoted 0 times

...

Carisa

9 months ago

B) Implementing keywords with a higher level of granularity

upvoted 0 times

...

Devon

9 months ago

A) Changing the scripting approach to data-driven scripting

upvoted 0 times

...

Rolande

10 months ago

Option C looks interesting, but I'm not sure that switching to explicit hard-coded waits is the best solution. The synchronous sampling approach might have its issues, but it could still be optimized.

upvoted 0 times

...

Zena

10 months ago

Hmm, this seems like a tricky one. I'm leaning towards option B - implementing keywords with a higher level of granularity. That way, we can avoid repetitive sequences and make the tests more maintainable.

upvoted 0 times

...