CTAL-TAE · Question #120
Assume that you are the TAE responsible for the correct functioning of a TAS, deployed in a test environment that consists of a few machines running the same version of the operating system. The TAS…
The correct answer is D. Do not run any tests because you can immediately confirm the correct functioning of the. Option D is correct because the scenario provides two independent, formal assurances - the OS vendor guarantees full backward compatibility, and the infrastructure team confirms no impact on the TAS - which together constitute sufficient grounds to confirm correct functioning…
Question
Assume that you are the TAE responsible for the correct functioning of a TAS, deployed in a test environment that consists of a few machines running the same version of the operating system. The TAS has been working and stable since its deployment, it has been used to run an automated test suite consisting of many similar automated test. The infrastructure team is planning to update the operating system on these machines by installing a new the service pack for security reasons. Since the vendor of the operating system assurance full backward compatibility, the infrastructure team assurance that there will be no impacts on the functioning of the TAS. What is the BEST approach to confirm the correct functioning of the TAS in this scenario?
Options
- AVerify the behavior of the automated tests by running a small tests, then gradually run the
- BMake sure that the infrastructure team has completed installing the service pack on the machines
- CVerify the behavior of the whole automated test suite by running all the automated tests
- DDo not run any tests because you can immediately confirm the correct functioning of the
How the community answered
(30 responses)- A13% (4)
- B3% (1)
- C7% (2)
- D77% (23)
Explanation
Option D is correct because the scenario provides two independent, formal assurances - the OS vendor guarantees full backward compatibility, and the infrastructure team confirms no impact on the TAS - which together constitute sufficient grounds to confirm correct functioning without running any tests. A TAE must apply risk-based judgment: when both the product vendor and the deployment team have explicitly assured compatibility, executing tests purely as a formality adds no value and wastes resources.
Why the distractors fail:
- A (gradual incremental run): Unnecessary overhead - running even a subset of tests is redundant when backward compatibility is formally guaranteed; this approach treats the assurances as untrustworthy without justification.
- B (confirm installation completed): Merely verifying the service pack was installed says nothing about TAS behavior; it confuses a prerequisite action with actual confirmation of correct functioning.
- C (run the full test suite): Running everything is disproportionate to the risk level; it ignores the vendor and infrastructure assurances entirely and is the most costly option with no added benefit in this context.
Memory tip: Think of the two assurances as a "double sign-off" - vendor backward compatibility + infrastructure team confirmation = no verification run needed. If either assurance were missing, you'd default to testing; both present means trust the assurances.
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.