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

ISTQB Exam CT-TAE 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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Malcom
1 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
22 days ago
C: D) The automated regression test suite has a narrower scope of functionality
upvoted 0 times
...
Karon
29 days ago
B: But what if the defect is really just playing tricks on us, like a software ghost?
upvoted 0 times
...
Nana
1 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
1 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
2 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
Sommer
3 days ago
C: Definitely, we need to ensure thorough testing for future releases.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephania
22 days ago
B: Yeah, I agree. If it's too narrow, we might miss potential defects.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vilma
30 days ago
A: I think D makes sense. We need to cover all functionalities in the regression test suite.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Natalie
2 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
2 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
2 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
1 months ago
Definitely, we can't afford to miss any potential defects that could resurface.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ressie
1 months ago
I agree, consistency is key when it comes to running regression tests.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Amie
2 months ago
I agree with you, Nickole. If the testing is not thorough, the defect might slip through again.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nickole
2 months ago
I think the defect could re-occur if the automated defect confirmation testing is not effective.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77