ISTQB CT-TAE Exam Dumps & Practice Test Questions

Question 1:

As a Test Automation Engineer, you find that your current web test automation tool cannot identify a particular object in a new web application because the object is non-standard. What is the best initial action to resolve this problem?

A. Check if running the application on a desktop environment allows the tool to recognize the object.
B. Explore other test automation tools available in the market that might recognize the object.
C. Ask the developers to remove the object and replace it with standard fields that your tool can identify.
D. Request the developers to modify the object so it becomes compatible with the existing automation tool.

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

When a test automation engineer encounters an object in a web application that the automation tool cannot recognize, the most logical and efficient first step is to collaborate with the development team to modify the object so that it becomes compatible with the existing tool. This is represented by Option D, and it is considered the best initial course of action.

Test automation tools rely heavily on identifying UI elements based on properties such as element ID, class name, tag structure, or XPath. However, when developers use custom or complex objects—such as canvas elements, third-party widgets, or dynamically generated content—the test tool may fail to capture or interact with them. This can break existing scripts or make it impossible to build new automated tests around those components.

Instead of resorting to disruptive or expensive solutions like switching tools or redesigning the application entirely, the first line of action should be collaboration. Developers can make minor modifications—such as assigning unique and accessible IDs, using supported HTML tags, or adjusting the DOM structure—to make the object automation-friendly. These changes are usually low effort but can significantly improve testability without affecting the UI’s look and feel.

Now let’s look at why the other options are not ideal as a first step:

• Option A suggests checking if the object is recognizable on a desktop version of the app. This might work in some specific cases, but if the object is inherently incompatible with the tool due to how it’s coded, the platform (desktop vs. web) likely won’t matter. This approach adds complexity and doesn't directly address the root issue.

• Option B proposes exploring other tools. While tool evaluation can be a viable long-term solution, it is resource-intensive and involves costs, migration plans, retraining, and script re-writing. It should only be considered after all feasible modifications to the current tool or app have been ruled out.

• Option C suggests removing or replacing the object. This is a highly invasive change. If the object provides essential functionality or a better user experience, replacing it with a simpler UI component may degrade the product.

In summary, the most practical and collaborative step is to work with developers to adjust the object so the existing automation tool can recognize it. This maintains test integrity, minimizes disruption, and supports efficient and scalable automation practices.

Question 2:

Your company uses a third-party open-source capture-replay tool as a key part of its Test Automation Solution (TAS). As a Test Automation Engineer, which two actions should you prioritize to keep this tool effective?

a) Place the third-party tool under configuration management control.
b) Negotiate annual support and maintenance fees with the vendor.
c) Stay updated on new releases and versions of the tool.
d) Ensure test scripts are fully integrated into the tool's framework.
e) Avoid making any modifications to the third-party tool, as altering it is prohibited.

A. a and b
B. c and d
C. a and c
D. d and e

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

Maintaining an open-source third-party tool effectively requires both configuration management and staying current with updates.

• Configuration management (Option a) ensures that every version, patch, or configuration change of the tool is tracked and documented. This is essential for consistency, troubleshooting, and collaboration across teams.

• Keeping up with updates (Option c) is critical because newer versions often contain bug fixes, security patches, and new features that improve stability and compatibility with evolving technologies.

Why the other choices are less suitable?

• Option b relates to financial agreements, which is not typically relevant for open-source tools, and thus not a primary concern for the Test Automation Engineer’s role.

• Option d (integrating test scripts) is important for the overall automation process but does not specifically address the maintenance or health of the tool itself.

• Option e is incorrect because some open-source licenses or projects allow modifications, and forbidding any changes could unnecessarily limit flexibility.

Therefore, the correct approach to maintaining the tool’s effectiveness focuses on configuration management and staying updated.

Question 3:

When using model-based testing as the primary method for test automation in a project, how does this choice impact the structure of the Test Automation Architecture (TAA)?

A. All TAA layers are used, but test generation is automated through the model.
B. The test execution layer is no longer necessary.
C. No modifications are needed because the model automatically defines all interfaces.
D. Designing API tests is unnecessary as the model automatically covers them.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

Model-Based Testing (MBT) is a test automation technique where a model representing the system under test (SUT) drives the generation of test cases. The model captures the expected behavior or functional requirements, enabling automated creation of tests based on these definitions.

Within the Test Automation Architecture (TAA), several layers exist, such as test design/generation, execution, reporting, and maintenance. When MBT is adopted, all these layers remain relevant but the test generation layer is distinctly impacted: it becomes automated and driven by the model rather than manually scripted.

Option A is correct because it correctly states that all layers of the TAA still exist—execution, reporting, and others—but the test generation layer is automated by leveraging the defined model. This enhances efficiency and coverage, ensuring that tests reflect the model’s logic and expected system behavior without manual scripting for each test case.

Why the other options are incorrect:

• B: The execution layer remains critical regardless of the test generation method. Automated tests, once generated, still require execution against the SUT to validate behavior.

• C: While the model supports test case creation, interfaces and integration points still require configuration and adaptation. The model does not automatically handle all interface definitions or technical environments.

• D: Even though MBT automates test generation, some API-level test design may still be required to cover complex or edge case scenarios that the model might not explicitly define.

In summary, MBT automates the test generation phase but does not eliminate other essential layers of TAA such as execution and reporting. The architecture adapts by integrating the model-driven generation while retaining the overall framework.

Question 4:

Your functional regression test automation suite ran flawlessly during the first two sprints. However, in the third sprint, several failures were recorded, mostly due to defects in the keyword scripts rather than the system under test (SUT). Developers have requested more details to reproduce the issues. 

Which two additional logging elements should you add to your Test Automation Suite (TAS) to aid failure diagnosis and defect reporting?

A. Dynamic measurement data about the SUT
B. A ‘TAS error’ status besides ‘pass’ and ‘fail’ for test cases
C. Color coding with ‘pass’ as red and ‘fail’ as green
D. A counter for the number of times each test case ran
E. System configuration details, including software, firmware, and OS versions
F. Copies of all executed keyword script source code

Correct Answers: A, E

Explanation:

When test failures occur, especially those involving defects in test automation scripts or intermittent issues in the system under test (SUT), providing detailed and contextual logs becomes essential for efficient debugging.

Two critical areas enhance failure analysis and developer support:

• A. Dynamic measurement data about the SUT:
  Capturing runtime performance data such as response times, resource usage, or transaction metrics during test execution provides insights into whether the failure stems from performance degradation or unexpected system behavior. This data helps differentiate between functional defects and environmental or load-related issues.

• E. System configuration information:
  Logging the exact environment details—software versions, firmware levels, operating system configurations—is vital. Many defects are environment-specific, and developers need this information to replicate the conditions accurately. Without this data, intermittent bugs are difficult to reproduce and fix.

Why other options are less helpful:

• B: Introducing a ‘TAS error’ status adds minimal diagnostic value. Detailed error logs or stack traces are more effective than simple status codes.

• C: Color coding results is useful visually but does not improve the technical quality of failure diagnostics.

• D: Counting executions offers statistical insight but does not aid in failure root cause analysis.

• F: While having keyword script source code is helpful, it is usually accessible through version control or existing repositories, so including it in test logs is not necessary and can clutter logs.

In summary, augmenting your TAS with dynamic SUT metrics and system configuration logs provides the critical context needed to analyze failures accurately and expedite defect resolution by developers.

Question 5:

Your existing Test Automation Suite (TAS) has worked well on a Windows GUI system developed under a waterfall lifecycle, with minor updates every six months. Now, the project is moving to Scrum, planning iterative sprints and a modernized UI. During the release planning phase, you want to review your TAS for efficiency and fit with this faster agile rhythm.

Which two actions would most effectively improve your TAS for the new Scrum-based development?

A. Make sure new automation code follows the same naming conventions as the existing code.
B. Run a full regression test in the first sprint to find areas to improve the TAS.
C. Verify the TAS uses the latest OS-compatible libraries.
D. Examine GUI interaction functions to consolidate and simplify them.
E. Consult the test team to get their feedback on improving TAS usability.

Correct Answers: A and E

Explanation:

Transitioning a Test Automation Suite from a traditional waterfall to an agile Scrum methodology requires adapting the suite to handle faster, more iterative development cycles. The goal is to make TAS more flexible, maintainable, and user-friendly to keep pace with frequent code changes and sprint deliveries.

Option A — maintaining consistent naming conventions in new automation code — is essential. Naming consistency ensures that automation scripts remain readable and maintainable, which is critical when development cycles shorten. It helps both current and new team members quickly understand and modify tests, improving collaboration and reducing errors in the fast-paced sprint environment.

Option E — involving the test team to gather feedback — is equally important. The people who use the TAS daily have valuable insights into what works well and where friction occurs. Their suggestions can guide practical improvements to the suite's ease of use, reducing tester effort and improving productivity. Early involvement encourages team buy-in and helps identify real-world issues that might be overlooked otherwise.

Other options, while valid in some contexts, are less urgent or impactful during this transition:

• Option B suggests a full regression test in Sprint 1, but this can be time-consuming and delays iterative improvements. Agile favors incremental testing aligned with sprint deliveries rather than large upfront regression runs.

• Option C relates to updating libraries, which is good practice but less critical than adapting the suite’s structure and usability for Scrum.
  
  

• Option D—function consolidation—may improve code quality but can be deferred until after the suite stabilizes in the new agile context.

In summary, consistent coding standards (A) and incorporating user feedback (E) are the most effective immediate steps to prepare your TAS for agile development’s speed and flexibility.

Question 6:

You are automating tests for a government “Making Tax Digital” project. So far, you've used a simple capture-and-replay approach, but now management wants to:

• Easily add new test cases

• Reduce duplicate scripts

• Lower maintenance costs

Which scripting technique best meets these goals?

A. Linear scripting
B. Structured scripting
C. Data-driven scripting
D. Keyword-driven scripting

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

When evolving from basic record-and-playback test scripts to a more maintainable and scalable automation framework, choosing the right scripting methodology is critical, especially for large projects requiring flexibility and reduced maintenance effort.

Keyword-driven scripting is the optimal choice here because it abstracts the test logic into reusable keywords representing user actions (e.g., "click button," "enter text"). Testers then create test cases by sequencing these keywords rather than coding detailed steps every time. This approach offers several key advantages:

• Ease of adding new test cases: Since test cases are built from keywords, new scenarios can be created quickly by combining existing keywords or adding new ones without rewriting whole scripts.

• Reduced script duplication: Common actions are centralized as keywords, preventing repetitive code spread across multiple scripts. This centralization simplifies updates, as fixing a keyword fixes all scripts using it.

• Lower maintenance costs: Changes in the application under test require updating only the affected keywords rather than multiple individual scripts, greatly reducing maintenance time and effort.

Other scripting approaches have limitations in this context:

• Linear scripting records every step sequentially and lacks modularity, leading to high duplication and expensive maintenance.

• Structured scripting improves modularity through functions but still requires more manual coding and lacks the abstraction of keyword-driven approaches.

• Data-driven scripting separates data from test scripts, which aids in testing multiple data sets but doesn’t inherently reduce script duplication or simplify test case creation as effectively as keyword-driven scripting.

In conclusion, keyword-driven scripting provides the modularity, abstraction, and reusability necessary to support rapid test case development and maintenance efficiency, perfectly aligning with management’s goals.

Question 7:

The Test Automation Manager wants a solution to track code coverage metrics every time the automated regression tests run. These metrics should show trends over time to ensure test coverage keeps pace with system enhancements, never decreasing and preferably increasing. 

The solution should minimize manual effort and errors. Which method best meets these needs?

A. Test automation tools only track coverage for the test scripts, so tests must run manually while a separate coverage tool runs in the background.
B. The automation framework logs overall code coverage in an Excel spreadsheet after each run, which is manually reviewed and shared with stakeholders.
C. The automation framework records code coverage per run, exports it to a pre-formatted Excel file that automatically updates a trend chart, which is then shared with stakeholders.
D. The automation framework records test pass/fail rates, exports these to Excel, and automatically generates and emails a success rate trend chart to stakeholders.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

The Test Automation Manager needs a solution that tracks code coverage metrics automatically every time the regression tests run, with the ability to analyze trends over time and minimize manual intervention to reduce errors. Let’s break down why Option C is the best fit.

Option C describes a workflow where the test automation framework not only records code coverage for each test run but also exports that data into a pre-formatted Excel spreadsheet. This spreadsheet has automated charts that visually track the coverage trends over time. Sharing this information with stakeholders can be automated as well, providing timely insights without manual data handling. This meets the requirements of automation, trend tracking, and minimal human intervention, ensuring that coverage never decreases unnoticed and ideally improves.

Why the other options fall short:

• Option A assumes test automation tools cannot track code coverage for the system under test (SUT), only for the test scripts. While this is true for some tools, many modern automation frameworks and tools do provide coverage metrics directly related to the SUT. Additionally, this option requires manual running of tests and separate tools, increasing errors and manual effort, which contradicts the requirements.

• Option B involves logging code coverage data in Excel but requires manual review and sharing. This introduces human delay and potential errors, and it lacks automatic trend visualization, which is key to monitoring ongoing coverage.

• Option D tracks only pass/fail rates of test cases, not code coverage. While useful for quality metrics, it does not address the manager’s primary concern: tracking coverage scope over time to ensure enhancements are tested.

In summary, Option C provides a fully automated, data-driven, and visually insightful method to track code coverage trends, directly addressing all the stated requirements.

Question 8:

What is a common drawback of implementing test automation?

A. Automated exploratory testing is difficult to achieve.
B. Test automation distracts from finding actual defects.
C. Automated tests are more prone to operator errors.
D. Test automation slows down feedback on system quality.

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

Test automation offers many benefits, including speed, consistency, and repeatability. However, it also has inherent limitations. Among these, the difficulty of automating exploratory testing stands out as a significant drawback.

Exploratory testing is a highly adaptive, human-driven approach where testers simultaneously learn about the system, design tests, and execute them on the fly. This requires creativity, intuition, and rapid decision-making based on observed system behavior. Because automated tests rely on predefined scripts and lack the cognitive flexibility of humans, they cannot replicate exploratory testing effectively.

This makes Option A the correct answer: automating exploratory testing is challenging because it demands dynamic adaptability that current automation tools cannot provide. While automation excels at executing repetitive, predefined tests, it struggles with open-ended, creative test scenarios.

Why the other options are less accurate:

• Option B suggests automation diverts attention from defect detection. In reality, automation enhances defect detection by enabling more thorough and frequent testing, complementing manual efforts rather than distracting from them.

• Option C claims automated tests are more prone to operator errors. This is generally false because automation reduces human error by running tests consistently without manual intervention.

• Option D states automation slows feedback. Quite the opposite is true—automation typically accelerates feedback loops by executing tests rapidly and continuously, especially in modern CI/CD pipelines.

In conclusion, while automation brings many efficiencies, its inability to effectively perform exploratory testing remains a notable limitation.

Question 9:

After new features are added to the System Under Test (SUT), which of the following actions would be least appropriate for a Test Automation Engineer (TAE) to take when evaluating the impact on the Test Automation Solution (TAS)?

A. Obtain feedback from Business Analysts to determine if the TAS supports the new feature requirements
B. Analyze existing automation keywords to identify necessary script changes
C. Run current automated tests on the updated SUT to check for functionality changes
D. Verify compatibility of existing test tools with the updated SUT and explore alternatives if needed

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

When new features are introduced to the System Under Test (SUT), the Test Automation Engineer (TAE) must assess how these changes impact the existing Test Automation Solution (TAS). This evaluation is critical to maintaining an effective, reliable automation framework that supports the evolving application.

Option A — Collecting feedback from Business Analysts (BAs) is not the most appropriate action for the TAE in this context. While BAs are essential in defining and clarifying business requirements, the TAE’s primary responsibility lies in the technical evaluation of the automation framework. This involves assessing whether the existing automation scripts, keywords, and tools can support new functionalities, or if adjustments are necessary. BAs provide input during requirements analysis phases but do not typically influence the technical automation design or tool compatibility. Hence, relying on them for impact analysis of the TAS may divert focus from more critical technical activities.

Option B — Reviewing existing keywords in automation scripts is essential because keywords represent the reusable building blocks of test scripts. New features may require modifying or extending these keywords to automate new behaviors effectively. This ensures test scripts remain maintainable and functional.

Option C — Executing current automated tests on the updated SUT helps identify if tests still function as expected or if the new features introduce failures or changes that require script updates. This hands-on validation is crucial for verifying the TAS’s health after system changes.

Option D — Assessing test tool compatibility is necessary to confirm that the current tools support the updated SUT environment. If the tools are incompatible, alternative solutions must be researched to maintain automation effectiveness.

In summary, Option A is the least relevant for direct TAS impact analysis, as it focuses on business requirements rather than technical automation evaluation. The other options address core technical activities necessary to maintain an effective test automation suite.

Question 10:

In a project implementing test automation for a critical application, an automated test execution tool runs regression tests, and results must be integrated with a test management system to provide up-to-date reporting for managers. 

Which layer of the Generic Test Automation Architecture (gTAA) ensures proper reporting and manages interfaces with the test management system?

A. Reporting layer
B. Logging layer
C. Execution layer
D. Adaptation layer

Correct Answer: A

Explanation:

In the Generic Test Automation Architecture (gTAA), different layers handle distinct responsibilities to facilitate effective automation and management.

The reporting layer is specifically responsible for collecting, formatting, and distributing test execution results. Its primary role is to integrate outputs from both automated and manual tests into consolidated reports, which are accessible via test management systems. These reports help managers track testing progress, identify issues, and make informed decisions.

Option A — Reporting layer ensures that results from test execution tools are accurately conveyed to the test management system. This layer processes raw test outcomes, aggregates data, and generates meaningful summaries or dashboards, enabling real-time visibility into test status. This integration supports stakeholders by providing critical insights into test coverage, pass/fail rates, and defect tracking.

Option B — Logging layer captures detailed logs during test execution, such as system messages, error traces, and step-by-step activities. While vital for troubleshooting and debugging, it does not handle aggregation or communication of test results to management systems.

Option C — Execution layer is responsible for running test scripts and interacting directly with the System Under Test (SUT). This layer automates test case execution but does not manage how results are reported or shared with test management platforms.

Option D — Adaptation layer ensures the automation framework can interface with different environments, tools, or systems. It handles technical compatibility and integration challenges but does not oversee reporting or result communication.

In conclusion, the reporting layer is the key component that guarantees proper result reporting and interface management with test management systems, making it essential for accurate, up-to-date progress tracking and decision-making.