I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. The acceptance criteria definitely need more detail, and increasing the code coverage to 95% is a good way to catch more issues. I'll mark those two options.
Okay, I think I've got it. The key is to focus on the test plan and test classes. The test script should be used to define the test classes, and the test analyst who creates the test plan should also create the test classes. That should help reduce the defects.
Hmm, I'm a bit confused. The question is asking for two recommendations, but the options seem to be a mix of different approaches. I'll need to think this through carefully.
This is a tricky one. I'm not sure if increasing the code coverage to 95% is the best approach, since that might not necessarily reduce the number of defects. The acceptance criteria detail seems more promising.
The test analyst who creates the test plan must also create the test classes? Hmm, I don't know about that. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Why not just have a dedicated test team handle that?
The acceptance criteria should have more details? Yeah, that makes sense. Maybe the architect should also recommend investing in a good requirements management tool to keep everything organized.
Increasing the code coverage to 95%? That sounds like a recipe for a never-ending testing cycle. Wouldn't it be better to focus on the quality of the tests rather than just the quantity?
Samira
4 months agoLenny
4 months agoCherry
5 months agoJesusita
5 months agoStevie
5 months agoMarya
5 months agoWilliam
5 months agoBea
6 months agoLeatha
6 months agoSlyvia
6 months agoSol
6 months agoKyoko
6 months agoCecily
7 months agoAdaline
1 year agoCarin
1 year agoRuthann
10 months agoBlair
11 months agoRaylene
11 months agoArtie
11 months agoEladia
11 months agoCrista
11 months agoThad
12 months agoGlenn
12 months agoValentin
1 year agoAnjelica
1 year agoBernadine
1 year agoDorathy
1 year agoLynelle
1 year agoMicaela
12 months agoVictor
12 months agoLeigha
1 year ago