Pass the ISTQB Test Automation Engineer CT-TAE Questions and answers with CertsForce

 In a scenario where manual testers are overwhelmed by regression testing, leading to insufficient coverage of new features and an increase in defects, the most pertinent metric to track the value of test automation is the Equivalent Manual Test Effort (EMTE) for the automated tests (Option B). This metric compares the effort required to execute tests manually with the effort saved through automation. By quantifying the time and resources saved by automating regression tests, the TAE can demonstrate the TAS's impact on freeing up manual testers to focus on new feature testing, thereby improving the overall quality and efficiency of the testing process. Tracking EMTE highlights the direct benefits of automation in optimizing testing resources and supports the business case for continued or expanded investment in test automation, especially in scenarios where meeting deadlines and maintaining product quality are critical challenges.

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.

Good practice for maintaining the Test Automation System (TAS) involves ensuring that the system is under configuration management, which includes the test suite, the testware artifacts, and the test environment. It also involves separating the test scripts from the environment and associated harnesses and artifacts to promote modularity and maintainability. Additionally, the TAS should be designed with replaceable components to allow for easy updates and changes without disrupting the overall system. However, stating that the TAS must run in the development environment because development and programming knowledge are required for its maintainability is not a good practice. The TAS should be able to run in multiple environments, and maintainability should not be dependent solely on the development environment or require development knowledge, as it should be maintainable by the testing team as well12345.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer (CT-TAE) certification materials and the associated syllabus provide guidelines on the best practices for maintaining the TAS, emphasizing the importance of configuration management, separation of concerns, and modularity12345.

Tracking the frequency of test automation code reporting defects that are not actual defects in the System Under Test (SUT) is known as measuring the number of false-fail results (Option D). This metric is crucial in evaluating the precision and reliability of the Test Automation Solution (TAS). False-fail results can lead to unnecessary investigation work, reducing the efficiency of the testing process and potentially eroding trust in the automation. By monitoring and minimizing false-fails, a Test Automation Engineer (TAE) can enhance the TAS's effectiveness, ensuring that it accurately reflects the state of the SUT and provides valuable feedback to the development team. This metric directly impacts the credibility and utility of automated testing by indicating how often the automation incorrectly flags a pass condition as a fail, thereby necessitating refinement of the automation code or test environment configurations to reduce these occurrences.

 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.

In the context of a state-based and event-driven system that is described by a finite-state machine and exposes its functionality via an API, it is crucial to adopt a test definition strategy that can handle the dynamic nature of the system. Use case/exception case coverage is important because it ensures that all the functional paths and the exceptions are tested. This is particularly relevant when the behavior of the system under test (SUT) depends on hardware and communication links that can be unreliable. By focusing on use case/exception case coverage, the Test Automation Architecture (TAA) can be designed to validate the SUT’s behavior across all possible states and transitions, including handling exceptions and errors that may occur due to unreliable hardware or communication links.

References = The ISTQB CT-TAE materials emphasize the importance of a test definition strategy that covers use cases and exception cases, especially for systems that are state-based and event-driven12345. This approach aligns with the best practices for test automation, ensuring comprehensive coverage and robust testing of the SUT.

In this scenario, where the main goal is to verify the compatibility of the automation tool with the application and its ability to recognize objects and controls, capture-replay scripting would be the most suitable technique. This approach allows you to record manual test cases as they are performed in the browser and then replay them automatically. It’s a quick way to convert manual tests into automated ones without requiring extensive programming knowledge. Capture-replay tools can help validate that the tool can interact with the application as expected and identify any potential issues with object recognition.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus covers the different scripting techniques and their appropriate usage scenarios. For a detailed understanding of capture-replay scripting and its benefits for initial automation efforts, refer to the official ISTQB Test Automation Engineer documents and training resources12.

Confirmation testing, also known as retesting, involves verifying that defects identified during earlier tests have been fixed. The ISTQB guidelines suggest that confirmation tests are suitable candidates for automation because they are often repetitive and need to be run multiple times to confirm that the defect has indeed been fixed and does not reappear in subsequent releases. Automating these tests can save time and resources, and when incorporated into a regression test suite, they can provide continuous feedback on the status of the application under test.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus and study materials emphasize the importance of automating confirmation tests as part of a comprehensive test strategy. This includes integrating automated confirmation tests into the regression suite to ensure that previously fixed defects do not reoccur, thus maintaining the integrity of the software over time123.

The SUT code coverage metric is crucial in determining whether the test suite has been updated to cover new functionalities. If the code coverage does not increase or remains the same after new functionalities are added, it suggests that the test suite has not been adequately updated to include tests for the new code. This is because code coverage measures the extent to which the source code of the program is executed when a particular test suite runs. A test suite that is not updated for new functionalities will not execute the new parts of the code, hence the code coverage will not reflect the new additions.

References = The answer is verified using the ISTQB Test Automation Engineer documents and training resources, which emphasize the importance of maintaining code coverage with the evolution of the SUT to ensure that the test suite remains effective over time123.

 Controllability refers to the degree to which a system, such as the System Under Test (SUT), allows inputs to be injected in a controlled manner. When the SUT provides interfaces that can be used to perform actions on it, this characteristic is essential for test automation because it enables the test engineer to manipulate the system’s state and behavior during testing. Controllability is crucial for ensuring that tests can be performed consistently and effectively, as it allows for precise control over the test conditions. References = ISTQB materials define controllability as a key attribute of a testable system. It is discussed in the context of test automation, particularly in relation to the interfaces provided by the SUT that allow for controlled manipulation during testing12.