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 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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Tasia
1 months 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
10 days 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
16 days ago
D) Implementing standard setup and teardown functions at test case level
upvoted 0 times
...
Angella
24 days ago
A) Implementing keywords with higher level of granularity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Katie
2 months 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
18 hours ago
D) Implementing standard setup and teardown functions at test case level
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorrie
7 days ago
C) Adopting a set of standard verification methods for use by all automated tests
upvoted 0 times
...
Lucina
8 days ago
B) Improving the architecture of the application in order to improve its testability
upvoted 0 times
...
Quinn
1 months ago
A) Implementing keywords with higher level of granularity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Sharen
2 months 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 months ago
D) Implementing standard setup and teardown functions at test case level
upvoted 0 times
...
Dierdre
1 months ago
A) Implementing keywords with higher level of granularity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Verlene
2 months 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
2 months 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
14 days ago
D) Implementing standard setup and teardown functions at test case level
upvoted 0 times
...
Clarence
25 days ago
C) Adopting a set of standard verification methods for use by all automated tests
upvoted 0 times
...
Slyvia
30 days ago
B) Improving the architecture of the application in order to improve its testability
upvoted 0 times
...
Cristal
1 months ago
A) Implementing keywords with higher level of granularity
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Rossana
2 months ago
I agree with Oliva. It would make the test cases more modular and easier to maintain.
upvoted 0 times
...
Oliva
2 months ago
I think implementing keywords with higher level of granularity would be the best recommendation.
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