CT-TAE ISTQB Certified Tester Test Automation Engineer Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

Observability in the context of a System Under Test (SUT) refers to the degree to which the internal states of the system can be inferred from knowledge of its external outputs. It is a measure of how well internal states of a system can be understood by examining its outputs. In test automation, observability is crucial because it allows testers to understand what is happening inside the SUT without having direct access to its internal workings. This characteristic is essential for identifying and diagnosing issues, understanding system behavior, and ensuring that the system is functioning correctly. High observability means that the system’s outputs, including its states and any intermediate results or error messages, are readily available for examination, which is vital for effective testing and debugging.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus and study materials emphasize the importance of observability as part of the testability of systems. It is highlighted as a key characteristic that enables testers to detect defects and understand system behavior through the outputs the system provides during test execution123.

In model-based testing, the test cases are derived from a model that represents the desired behavior of the System Under Test (SUT). This model serves as the basis for generating test cases, which means the test generation layer will be automated based on the defined model. However, all other layers of the Test Automation Architecture (TAA), such as the execution layer, test script layer, and the adaptation layer, are still utilized. The model informs the generation of test cases but does not eliminate the need for the other layers, as they play crucial roles in the execution and management of the tests. References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus discusses the influence of model-based testing on the layers of the TAA, emphasizing the automation of the test generation layer while retaining the other layers123.

In the context of automated test execution reports, the inclusion of defect clusters is not typically recommended. The primary focus of such reports is to provide a summary of the test execution results, details about the system or application under test along with its version, and the environment in which the tests were executed. Defect clusters, while important in the overall testing process, are generally managed separately from the execution report, often in defect management tools or systems designed for tracking and analyzing defects.

References = The answer is based on the ISTQB CT-TAE guidelines which specify the content that should be included in a test automation report. According to the guidelines, the report should include a summary of the execution results, the system being tested, and the environment in which the tests were run. Defect clusters are not mentioned as part of the report’s content and are therefore considered irrelevant to be included in the test execution report1.

In a keyword-driven framework, especially when dealing with a web application, having a large set of highly specific keywords can lead to redundancy and inefficiency. Implementing keywords with a higher level of granularity can help reduce the number of repeated instances of identical sequences of keywords, as identified by the static analysis tool. This approach promotes reusability and maintainability of test scripts, making the test automation suite more robust and easier to manage. It also aligns with the principles of modularity and abstraction, which are key in test automation engineering.

References = The ISTQB CT-TAE materials emphasize the importance of maintaining a manageable level of abstraction in keyword-driven frameworks to ensure that the automated tests are efficient, maintainable, and provide clear insights into the SUT’s behavior12.

Both the time to execute automated tests and the speed and efficiency of TAS components are considered internal TAS metrics. Internal metrics are those that relate directly to the performance and effectiveness of the Test Automation System (TAS) itself, rather than its impact on external processes or outcomes. The time to execute automated tests measures how long the TAS takes to run a set of tests, which is a key factor in assessing the efficiency and performance of the automation. Similarly, the speed and efficiency of TAS components are directly related to how well the internal parts of the TAS are functioning. These metrics are crucial for understanding and improving the internal workings of the TAS, making them both internal metrics.

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 most efficient way to ensure consistency of the Test Automation System (TAS) across different System Under Test (SUT) environments is to maintain the TAS in a central repository. This approach allows for automated installation and configuration of the TAS, ensuring that each test team uses the same version of the TAS. This method reduces the risk of discrepancies and errors that can occur with manual setups and ensures that all teams are working with the same tools and versions, which is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the testing process.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus discusses the importance of maintaining synchronization between the TAS and the SUT to ensure consistent test results1. It also highlights the need for a centralized approach to manage and deploy the TAS efficiently across different environments2. This is essential for software houses that provide regular releases and need to test multiple versions of the software simultaneously1.

 When automating a manual regression test suite, it is considered good practice to store and access shared test data from a single source when possible. This approach helps to avoid duplication and the introduction of errors, which can occur when multiple sources of test data are used. Centralizing test data ensures consistency across tests and simplifies maintenance, as changes to the data need to be made in only one place. This practice aligns with principles of efficiency and reliability in test automation.

References = The information is based on the ISTQB CT-TAE guidelines, which recommend centralizing shared test data to improve the efficiency and reliability of automated testing1.

Abstraction in Test Automation Architecture (TAA) is primarily advantageous because it allows for flexibility in the test automation framework, making it easier to reuse and improve upon. Abstraction helps in encapsulating the complexity of tests, which means changes in the system under test (SUT) may require minimal changes in the test scripts themselves. This level of abstraction also supports the scalability of the test automation, allowing for the addition of new tests or features with less effort.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer documents highlight the importance of abstraction in creating a maintainable and scalable test automation framework. The principles of abstraction align with the goals of test automation, which include efficiency, reusability, and ease of maintenance123.

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 most crucial first step after an abnormal termination is to take a backup of the database in its current state. This ensures that you have a snapshot of the system at the point of failure, which is invaluable for a thorough post-mortem analysis. Without this, you may lose critical information about the state of the system that could help identify the root cause of the failure. Once the backup is secured, you can proceed with restoring the system to a consistent state and continue with subsequent tests or rerun the test suite as needed.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus and best practices highlight the importance of error recovery processes and the preservation of test artifacts for analysis. Taking a backup aligns with these guidelines as it allows for an accurate assessment of the failure and aids in improving the

The design for reuse of a Test Automation Solution (TAS) should primarily occur at the Test Automation Architecture (TAA) level. This is because the TAA defines the overall structure and design patterns that will be used throughout the TAS lifecycle. By focusing on reuse at the TAA level, it ensures that the test automation is designed with reuse in mind from the outset, which can increase the ability for reuse across different layers of the TAA.

References = The ISTQB® Test Automation Engineer (CT-TAE) certification materials emphasize the importance of designing for reuse at the TAA level. It is noted that while reuse aspects are already settled when the TAA is defined, the TAS can help increase the ability for reuse. This information is corroborated by discussions and consensus in the professional community, as seen in the resources provided by ISTQB and other educational platforms12.

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.

 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.

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 an Agile project, it is crucial to maintain the integrity of the regression suite to ensure that it reliably verifies the application’s functionality as new changes are introduced. When inconsistencies in test results are observed, as in the case of the two test cases that passed in sprints 1 and 4 but failed in sprints 2 and 3, it is important to address these issues promptly to prevent potential defects from being overlooked.

Quarantining the inconsistent test cases allows the regression suite to continue to be executed without the risk of these tests affecting the overall results. This approach also enables the Test Automation Engineer (TAE) to conduct a root cause analysis in parallel to determine why the test cases are producing inconsistent results. By doing so, the TAE can identify whether the issue lies within the test cases themselves, the test environment, or the application under test.

This course of action aligns with best practices for maintaining test reliability and effectiveness in an Agile environment, where rapid iterations and continuous integration are key. It ensures that the rest of the regression suite can still provide valuable feedback on the application’s quality, while the problematic tests are being investigated and resolved.

References = The answer and explanation are based on the ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus and best practices for Agile testing methodologies. For further details, refer to the ISTQB CT-TAE study materials and resources provided by ISTQB and other reputable testing knowledge sources.

A test execution report is primarily used to identify problematic areas of the System Under Test (SUT) by maintaining a history of which test cases fail most frequently. This allows teams to track trends over time, pinpoint recurring issues, and focus their testing and development efforts on the most problematic areas. The report serves as a historical record that can be analyzed to improve the quality and reliability of the SUT.

References = The use of test execution reports in test automation is well-documented in industry best practices and resources. These reports are essential for providing a consolidated summary of the testing performed, highlighting areas for improvement, and enabling informed decision-making for optimizing testing strategies12. They are not typically used to understand individual test step failures, measure test coverage, or record how failures have been fixed, as those are often addressed in more specific testing documentation or tools.

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 success of a test automation project is contingent upon the maintenance and adaptability of the test suite to evolving requirements. When automated tests fail due to changes in the System Under Test (SUT), it is crucial to address these failures by updating the tests to align with the new requirements. This ensures that the test suite remains effective and relevant, providing accurate validation for the SUT. Disabling failing tests can lead to gaps in test coverage and diminish the integrity of the test suite, which is why prompt fixing is recommended over disabling.

References = The ISTQB Test Automation Engineer syllabus emphasizes the importance of maintaining and adapting test automation to meet new requirements. It outlines the need for test automation solutions to be designed, developed, and maintained with a focus on the dynamic nature of functional tests and their relationship to test management, configuration management, and defect management1234.