Deal of The Day! 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 7 Discussion

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?
B) Improving the architecture of the application in order to improve its testability
A) Implementing keywords with higher level of granularity
C) Adopting a set of standard verification methods for use by all automated tests
D) Implementing standard setup and teardown functions at test case level

ISTQB CT-TAE Exam - Topic 1 Question 7 Discussion

Actual exam question for ISTQB's CT-TAE exam
Question #: 7
Topic #: 1
[All CT-TAE 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?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Mitsue at Feb 27, 2023, 02:32 AM

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
Sylvie
8 months ago
Wait, are we really doing all that setup and teardown manually?
upvoted 0 times
...
Lenny
8 months ago
C sounds good, but do we really need standard methods for everything?
upvoted 0 times
...
Hannah
9 months ago
A is interesting, but not sure if it's the best option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kimbery
9 months ago
I think B could really help with overall testability!
upvoted 0 times
...
Merilyn
9 months ago
D seems like a solid choice for better organization.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jennie
9 months ago
I think improving the architecture could be beneficial, but it seems more like a long-term solution. I’m leaning towards D for immediate improvements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Youlanda
9 months ago
I feel like we practiced a similar question where standardization was key. Option C sounds familiar, but I wonder if it’s the best choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Belen
9 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I think implementing keywords with higher granularity might help too. It could make the tests more readable, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Alaine
9 months ago
I remember discussing the importance of setup and teardown functions in our last class. It seems like option D could really streamline the test cases.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alpha
9 months ago
I'm a bit confused by this question. I know we need to create visuals from Kusto queries, but I'm not sure if Plotly is the best choice. TensorFlow is a powerful machine learning library, so maybe that could be used to analyze the data and generate visualizations? I'll have to do some more research on the different options.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tina
9 months ago
I think I've read that you might need to run it as root to see all the open files, but I'm not completely sure.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jina
10 months ago
Ah, I remember this from my Attachmate training. The mnemonic keyword for the Enter key is {enter}. Easy peasy!
upvoted 0 times
...
Hoa
10 months ago
Hmm, I'm a little unsure about this one. I'm torn between A and B. Offering free yarn could be a good incentive, but getting the active members to post more might be more effective in the long run. I'll have to think this through a bit more.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tasia
1 year ago
Option C could also be a good choice, but I think implementing standard setup and teardown functions is the more elegant solution here. It'll keep the test cases focused on the actual functionality being tested.
upvoted 0 times
Paris
1 year ago
Option C could also be a good choice, but I think implementing standard setup and teardown functions is the more elegant solution here. It'll keep the test cases focused on the actual functionality being tested.
upvoted 0 times
...
Paul
1 year ago
D) Implementing standard setup and teardown functions at test case level
upvoted 0 times
...
Angella
1 year ago
A) Implementing keywords with higher level of granularity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Katie
1 year ago
Haha, talk about repetitive code! Sounds like they need to hire a good refactoring consultant to whip this test suite into shape. Option D is definitely the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Denae
1 year ago
Haha, talk about repetitive code! Sounds like they need to hire a good refactoring consultant to whip this test suite into shape. Option D is definitely the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mitsue
1 year ago
D) Implementing standard setup and teardown functions at test case level
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorrie
1 year ago
C) Adopting a set of standard verification methods for use by all automated tests
upvoted 0 times
...
Lucina
1 year ago
B) Improving the architecture of the application in order to improve its testability
upvoted 0 times
...
Quinn
1 year ago
A) Implementing keywords with higher level of granularity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Sharen
1 year ago
I agree with Staci. Having that common setup and teardown process in a shared function will make the test suite much more maintainable and easier to update in the future.
upvoted 0 times
Simona
1 year ago
D) Implementing standard setup and teardown functions at test case level
upvoted 0 times
...
Dierdre
1 year ago
A) Implementing keywords with higher level of granularity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Verlene
1 year ago
I personally think adopting a set of standard verification methods for use by all automated tests would be more beneficial in the long run.
upvoted 0 times
...
Staci
1 year ago
Option D seems like the obvious choice here. Implementing standard setup and teardown functions at the test case level will help eliminate all that redundant code we're seeing in the beginning and end of each test case.
upvoted 0 times
Natalya
1 year ago
D) Implementing standard setup and teardown functions at test case level
upvoted 0 times
...
Clarence
1 year ago
C) Adopting a set of standard verification methods for use by all automated tests
upvoted 0 times
...
Slyvia
1 year ago
B) Improving the architecture of the application in order to improve its testability
upvoted 0 times
...
Cristal
1 year ago
A) Implementing keywords with higher level of granularity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Rossana
1 year ago
I agree with Oliva. It would make the test cases more modular and easier to maintain.
upvoted 0 times
...
Oliva
1 year ago
I think implementing keywords with higher level of granularity would be the best recommendation.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel