CT-TAE Certified Tester Test Automation Engineer Questions and Answers

The technical design considerations for a Test Automation Architecture (TAA) are primarily focused on the technical aspects that will influence the design and development of the test automation solution. This includes the availability of interfaces for the SUT to be testable, which is crucial for automating tests, as well as adhering to standards and legal requirements like data privacy to ensure compliance and protect sensitive information. The data used by the SUT, such as configuration data and user data, is also a key consideration as it affects how tests are designed and executed. However, the number of users for the SUT is not a technical design consideration for a TAA; it is more related to performance testing and scalability rather than the technical design of the test automation itself.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer (CT-TAE) certification materials provide detailed insights into the design, development, and maintenance of test automation solutions, covering the necessary technical considerations for a TAA123.

 When evaluating the impact of new features on the Test Automation Solution (TAS), it would not be appropriate for the Test Automation Engineer (TAE) to gather feedback from Business Analysts to determine if the current TAS will meet the needs of the new features (Option A). While Business Analysts provide valuable insights into business requirements and the intended functionality of new features, their feedback may not directly inform the technical suitability or readiness of the TAS to handle these new features. Instead, the TAE should focus on technical evaluations such as reviewing existing keywords for necessary modifications (Option B), running existing automated tests against the updated SUT to identify any changes in operation (Option C), and assessing compatibility with existing test tools or identifying alternative solutions (Option D). These actions directly address the technical implications of new features on the TAS, ensuring that the automated testing remains effective and aligned with the evolving requirements of the SUT.

When encountering issues with the identification of GUI elements of third-party components within an automated testing framework, the initial step should be to verify the testability support with the providers of those components. This is because the third-party components may not adhere to the same standards or methods of identification that the primary testing tool uses. By contacting the providers, you can determine whether there are known issues or workarounds, or if they offer their own tools or methods for enabling test automation. This approach is proactive and can save time by addressing the compatibility issue at its source, rather than attempting to implement potentially inefficient or unreliable solutions.

References = The answer is supported by the ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus, which emphasizes the importance of understanding the test automation tool’s capabilities and the system under test (SUT), including any third-party components that may be integrated12. Additionally, the resources provided by softwaretestinghelp.com discuss the challenges and considerations when dealing with test automation, including the interaction with third-party elements34.

In the context of testing a major enhancement to an air traffic control user interface with a limited window for regression testing, the best and most cost-efficient approach to mitigate the risk of the test suite not completing overnight is to analyze the regression test suite and remove test coverage duplication and redundancy (Option C). This approach streamlines the test suite by eliminating unnecessary tests, thereby reducing the overall execution time without compromising the test coverage's integrity. It ensures that each test case provides unique value and that the suite as a whole is optimized for efficiency. This method does not require additional resources or environments and leverages the existing test suite and infrastructure, making it a cost-efficient solution to address the potential delay in starting performance and security testing due to extended regression test durations.

The four horizontal layers of the Generic Test Automation Architecture (gTAA) are designed to provide a structured approach to building test automation solutions. These layers are:

• Test Generation: This layer involves the creation of test cases or test scripts, which can be done manually or through the use of test automation tools.
• Test Definition: This layer involves specifying test objectives, requirements, and criteria to guide the test generation process.
• Test Execution: This layer involves running the test cases or test scripts generated in the previous layers.
• Test Adaptation: This layer involves analyzing test results and modifying the test cases or test scripts to improve the quality of the testing process.

References = The ISTQB CT-TAE syllabus and related documents outline the structure and responsibilities of the different layers within the gTAA, including the generation layer’s role in test case and test data specification12. Additionally, industry resources provide insights into the practical application of these layers in test automation architecture12.

Introducing a ‘TAS error’ status (b) would provide a clear distinction between failures caused by the SUT and those due to issues within the TAS itself, which is essential for accurate failure analysis and effective defect reporting. Including system configuration information (e), such as software/firmware and operating system versions, is also critical. This information can significantly aid developers in reproducing issues, as it provides context about the environment in which the test was executed.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer documents and training resources emphasize the importance of detailed logging for failure analysis and defect reporting. These resources advocate for clear categorization of test case outcomes and comprehensive recording of test environment configurations123.

When faced with an intermittently failing test, it is essential to remove it from the test suite to prevent it from affecting the overall test results and reliability. The next step is to conduct a thorough investigation to understand why the test is producing inconsistent results. This could involve examining the test environment, the test data, the timing of the test execution, and any potential race conditions or dependencies that could cause the test to behave differently from one run to another. Understanding and resolving the root cause of the intermittent failure is crucial to ensure the stability and accuracy of the automated test suite.

References = The approach to handling intermittently failing tests is discussed in various ISTQB Test Automation Engineer documents, which emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of the test suite and ensuring consistent and reliable test results123.

The business case for the pilot project set a very ambitious target: reducing the execution time by 90% for all tests in the regression suite. However, at the end of the pilot, only 40% of the tests were automated with a 60% reduction in execution time. This indicates that the initial target may have been unrealistic within the given timeframe and resources. It’s important for business cases to set achievable goals to ensure that the project can meet its objectives and provide a clear return on investment. Setting realistic targets also helps maintain stakeholder confidence and support for the project. References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus and related materials discuss the importance of realistic planning and setting achievable targets in the context of test automation projects. These resources emphasize that while test automation can significantly improve efficiency, the extent and speed of these improvements must be realistically assessed based on the specific context of the project12345.

 In the context of a CRM application with a GUI delivered through Internet Explorer using proprietary Active X and Java controls, keyword-driven scripting is the most suitable technique. This approach separates the test automation code from the test data, allowing for the creation of high-level keywords that represent user actions on the GUI. It is particularly effective in environments where specific commercial automation tools are necessary, as it enables non-technical testers to write automated test cases using a set of predefined keywords. This method enhances the maintainability and reusability of test scripts, making it easier to adapt to changes in the GUI controls or the underlying application.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus and materials provide guidance on selecting appropriate scripting techniques based on the characteristics of the application under test and the test automation tools available. It discusses the advantages of keyword-driven scripting in scenarios where rich client capabilities are implemented and specific automation tools are required12.

The optimal course of action involves conducting a thorough risk-benefit analysis of the enhanced Test Automation Solution (TAS). This analysis will weigh the potential benefits of the improvements against the risks posed by the unresolved performance and usability issues. By evaluating the impact of these factors on the maintenance releases, the test automation engineers can make an informed decision on whether the enhancements offer significant advantages over the previous version, and if they justify the potential risks involved.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus emphasizes the importance of risk management in the context of test automation. It suggests that decisions regarding the use of different versions of a TAS should be based on a careful assessment of risks and benefits, considering factors such as the stability of the system, the criticality of the application, and the nature of the changes introduced in the TAS1. This approach ensures that the chosen solution aligns with the project’s goals and quality standards2.

 The best way to automatically provide a report that is available 24/7 to the project team in a CI environment is to store the execution results of the integration tests for each build in a database without overwriting the previous results. This allows for a historical record of test results, which is essential for analyzing trends over time and for audit purposes. Using this database to automatically update a dashboard ensures that the information is readily accessible to the team at any time, providing a real-time and comprehensive view of the build history and test results.

References = The answer aligns with best practices in continuous integration and reporting, as described in ISTQB’s Test Automation Engineer syllabus, which emphasizes the importance of maintaining a history of test results and providing easy access to the results for all team members123.

For a Test Automation Solution (TAS) that utilizes a third-party capture-replay tool, it is crucial to ensure that: a) The tool is placed under configuration management control. This is important to maintain consistency across different environments and versions, and to manage changes effectively. c) Information about updates and new versions of the tool is obtained and applied. Keeping the tool up-to-date ensures that the latest features and fixes are utilized, which can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the TAS.

Placing the tool under configuration management control and staying informed about updates are essential practices for maintaining the reliability and integrity of the TAS.

References = The answer is based on the best practices for test automation as outlined in the ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus, which includes the management of test tools and the importance of keeping software up-to-date as part of configuration management123.

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 best time to consider legal and/or standard requirements for a System Under Test (SUT) is when developing a Test Automation Solution (TAS) (Option D). Legal and standard requirements often dictate specific testing protocols, data handling procedures, and compliance checks that must be integrated into the testing process. By considering these requirements during the TAS development phase, the automation framework can be designed to incorporate necessary compliance checks, data protection measures, and other regulatory obligations. This proactive approach ensures that the TAS not only effectively tests the functionality and performance of the SUT but also ensures compliance with relevant legal and industry standards, thereby mitigating the risk of legal challenges and enhancing the quality assurance process.

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 key challenge in this context is ensuring that the automated solution is compatible with mobile devices. Since the website must be “mobile friendly,” it is crucial that the automation covers the functionality on mobile platforms. However, automating tests for mobile browsers can be more complex due to the variety of devices, screen sizes, and operating systems. This complexity can make it challenging to ensure that the automation is effective across all potential user scenarios.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer (CT-TAE) documents and training resources provide comprehensive information on the challenges and considerations for test automation in a mobile-friendly context. These resources emphasize the importance of designing automation that is adaptable to different environments and can handle the intricacies of mobile platforms.

When deploying a Test Automation System (TAS) that requires shared resources and operates in its own test environment, the most effective way to mitigate the risk of existing applications not working due to resource conflicts is to perform compatibility testing in the target environment. This type of testing will help identify any issues where the TAS might interfere with the operation of existing applications that rely on the same resources. By addressing these compatibility issues before the TAS goes live, the risk of operational disruptions can be significantly reduced. This approach is supported by best practices in test automation, which emphasize the importance of ensuring that new systems work harmoniously within the established infrastructure without causing conflicts or errors12.

References = The ISTQB CT-TAE materials and guidelines highlight the importance of analyzing deployment risks and identifying technical issues that could lead to the failure of the test automation project. Compatibility testing is a key activity in this process, as it helps ensure that the TAS will function correctly alongside existing applications and within the current infrastructure34.

For the scenario of automating functional tests at the system test level via the Command Line Interface (CLI) of the SUT, with the requirements for fast and cheap maintenance, low cost for adding new tests, and high independence from the automation tool, the most suitable scripting technique is Data-driven scripting. This approach externalizes test data from the scripts into separate data files or repositories, allowing for the reuse of test scripts with different sets of data. Data-driven scripting is ideal for meeting the specified requirements because it enables rapid execution of a large number of test cases by merely changing the input data, without the need to alter the scripts themselves. This significantly reduces maintenance costs and the effort required to add new tests, as the core script remains the same. Moreover, this technique enhances the independence of the automated tests from the specific tools used, as the focus is on the data and the generic actions performed by the scripts, making it the most suitable choice for the described needs.

 The statement that the structure of automated tests must always be the same as the corresponding manual tests is false. Automated regression testing does not require the structure of the automated tests to mirror the manual tests. Instead, the focus should be on the objectives of the tests and ensuring they are met effectively through automation. The structure of automated tests can be different from manual tests as long as they are efficient and maintainable. Automated tests can be designed to be more modular, reusable, and maintainable compared to their manual counterparts. References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer documents and training resources provide comprehensive guidelines on the design, development, and maintenance of test automation solutions. They emphasize the importance of automating dynamic functional tests and the relationship of those tests to test management, configuration management, defect management, and other aspects of the software development lifecycle123.

Establishing a central library of keywords and associated definitions ensures consistency across different teams working on the same System Under Test (SUT). This approach not only promotes uniformity in keyword usage but also facilitates better communication, maintenance, and scalability of the test automation framework. By having a shared repository of keywords, teams can avoid duplication of effort and reduce the risk of discrepancies in test implementation. This centralization aligns with the ISTQB’s principles of efficient test automation architecture and management.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer (CT-TAE) documents and training resources emphasize the importance of a consistent and maintainable test automation framework. The creation of a central library of keywords is a recommended practice to achieve this consistency, as it supports the definition, implementation, and execution layers of a generic test automation architecture12.

 The goal is to verify the completeness, consistency, and correct behavior of an automated test suite (TAS) that has been successfully installed in the System Under Test (SUT) environment. Since the TAS has already been proven to install successfully, checking the repeatability of the TAS loading in the SUT environment (option C) is not a relevant check for this goal. The focus should be on verifying the correctness of the test cases and their outcomes. This includes ensuring that all test cases contain the expected results (option A), verifying that the postconditions have been fulfilled for all test cases (option B), and checking that all test cases produce repeatable outcomes (option D).

References = This explanation is based on the ISTQB’s guidelines for verifying the technical aspects of a deployed test automation solution and ensuring the correct behavior of test scripts and suites1.