Free ISTQB CT-TAE Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

Test automation does not inherently find more defects than manual testing; it executes pre-scripted tests against the software. The effectiveness of finding defects is determined by the quality of the test cases, whether automated or manual. Automated tests run the same steps consistently every time they are executed, which means they are not designed to find new defects unless the test scripts are updated to reflect changes in the test cases or the system under test.

References = The information is synthesized from the ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus and various resources that discuss the benefits and risks of test automation. Specifically, the ISTQB emphasizes the efficiency, repeatability, and coverage that test automation provides, as well as the challenges such as the initial investment and ongoing maintenance required1.

The design for reuse of a Test Automation Solution (TAS) should primarily occur at the Test Automation Architecture (TAA) level. This is because the TAA defines the overall structure and design patterns that will be used throughout the TAS lifecycle. By focusing on reuse at the TAA level, it ensures that the test automation is designed with reuse in mind from the outset, which can increase the ability for reuse across different layers of the TAA.

References = The ISTQB® Test Automation Engineer (CT-TAE) certification materials emphasize the importance of designing for reuse at the TAA level. It is noted that while reuse aspects are already settled when the TAA is defined, the TAS can help increase the ability for reuse. This information is corroborated by discussions and consensus in the professional community, as seen in the resources provided by ISTQB and other educational platforms12.

 In the context of a keyword-driven framework, especially when tests are based on low-level identifiers of web page components, significant changes to the SUT due to maintenance and new features can lead to false positive errors. This is because the identifiers used in the test scripts (like class indexes, tab sequence indexes, and coordinates) may change, causing the automated tests to interact incorrectly with the SUT or fail to interact at all. The keyword-driven approach, while offering reusability and abstraction, relies on the stability of the object identifiers; significant changes in the SUT can invalidate these identifiers, leading to false positives if the tests are not updated accordingly.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus and related documents highlight the importance of choosing the right framework and the potential impact of SUT changes on automated tests1234.

 The statement reflects the standard success factors for deploying an automation tool, which include rolling out the tool incrementally and adapting processes to fit with the use of the tool1. This approach allows for a controlled and measured implementation that can be adjusted based on feedback from each phase of the rollout. It is common for the test automation regime to not be fully mature immediately following a pilot; maturity develops over time as the tool is integrated into more projects and processes are refined.

References = The answer is based on the ISTQB Advanced Level Test Automation Engineer syllabus and the recognized best practices for deploying test automation tools as outlined in ISTQB materials21.

Linear scripting is the most suitable approach in the described scenario for several reasons:

• Simplicity and Speed: Linear scripting, also known as "record and playback," involves recording steps in a test as they are performed manually on the application under test. This approach is simple and fast to develop, aligning with the need for a solution that is "simple and fast" as mentioned in the question.
• Short-term Use: Given that the maintainability of the scripts is not a concern due to no anticipated changes to the software, the typically high maintenance cost associated with linear scripts is not a drawback in this context. This is because linear scripts can be brittle and may require significant updates if the application changes. However, since the application is a legacy system with no expected changes, this drawback is mitigated.
• Legacy System Context: Legacy systems often have established and stable interfaces, making them less susceptible to the kinds of changes that would typically break linear scripts. This stability makes linear scripting a viable option.
• Infrastructure Migrations: The scripts are intended to verify basic functionality during infrastructure migrations. Linear scripting can effectively capture the end-to-end flow of application usage, ensuring that the basic functionality works as expected after each migration.
• Skill Level Consideration: The Test Analysts have some programming skills but are not necessarily expert programmers. Linear scripting is accessible to individuals with varying levels of programming expertise, making it an inclusive choice that leverages the existing skills of the Test Analysts.

In conclusion, the linear scripting approach aligns with the requirements for simplicity, speed, and suitability for a non-changing legacy system, making it the best choice under the specified conditions.

Separating test definition from test execution in a Test Automation Architecture (TAA) is crucial for ensuring flexibility and maintainability in test automation efforts. The best reason for this separation is option B: It allows the test definition to be completed without knowledge of the tool that will be used for execution. This separation abstracts the process of defining what to test (test definition) from how to test (test execution). By decoupling these aspects, test definitions can be written in a more tool-agnostic manner, focusing solely on the testing objectives, requirements, and criteria without being constrained by the capabilities or limitations of any specific test execution tools. This approach not only enhances the reusability of test cases across different tools and environments but also facilitates easier maintenance and updates to the test suite as testing tools evolve or change. It enables a more sustainable and adaptable test automation framework that can better respond to changes in technology, tools, and testing needs over time.

When evaluating a test automation tool for use in distributed environments and interfacing with other test tools, the primary concerns should be the tool’s ability to operate effectively across multiple machines and environments (A), and whether it requires specific libraries that could impact the System Under Test (SUT) (E). The tool’s feature set © and the licensing scheme (B) are important but secondary to ensuring functional compatibility and integration with the existing ecosystem. The least important concerns would be the size of the feature set if only part of it will be used ©, and the details in the release notes about the impact on interfaces (D), as these do not directly affect the tool’s operational effectiveness or its integration with the SUT and other tools.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus and certification materials emphasize the importance of selecting tools that support effective and efficient testing within the given environment and integration with other tools. The syllabus covers the evaluation of test tools, considering factors such as compatibility, integration, and the impact on the SUT123.

 The best internal metric to measure the quality of the Test Automation System (TAS) and the number of problems associated with it would be the defect density within the TAS automation code. This metric provides insight into the robustness and reliability of the automation code itself. A lower defect density indicates higher quality and fewer problems, while a higher defect density may signal the need for improvements in the automation code. This metric is internal because it pertains directly to the quality of the TAS rather than its impact on external processes. References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus and other ISTQB materials emphasize the importance of internal metrics such as defect density to assess the quality and effectiveness of the TAS123.

For any significant automation project, a critical success factor is that the System Under Test (SUT) must be designed for testability (Option C). Testability refers to the ease with which a system can be tested, which includes aspects like accessibility to test interfaces, observability of outputs, controllability of inputs, and the system's ability to be put into a known state for testing. A SUT designed with testability in mind facilitates the creation and execution of automated tests, enhancing the effectiveness, reliability, and coverage of the Test Automation Architecture (TAA). This design consideration directly impacts the efficiency of testing activities, reducing the time and effort required to achieve comprehensive test coverage and identify defects.

Automated exploratory testing is challenging because it relies heavily on human intuition, experience, and real-time decision-making, which are difficult to replicate with automated systems. While test automation offers many advantages, such as repeatability and efficiency, it lacks the creativity and adaptability of a human tester exploring the software without predefined scripts or scenarios. This limitation can be significant, especially when the goal is to discover new and unexpected issues within the system under test.

References = The ISTQB CT-TAE materials discuss the objectives, advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of test automation, acknowledging that while automation can significantly enhance testing efficiency, certain aspects like exploratory testing are better suited for manual execution12.