ISTQB Certified Tester Advanced Level - Test Automation Engineering CTAL- TAE (Syllabus v2.0) Version: Demo [ Total Questions: 10] Web: www.certsout.com Email: support@certsout.com iSQI CTAL-TAE_V2 IMPORTANT NOTICE Feedback We have developed quality product and state-of-art service to ensure our customers interest. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to contact us at feedback@certsout.com Support If you have any questions about our product, please provide the following items: exam code screenshot of the question login id/email please contact us at and our technical experts will provide support within 24 hours. support@certsout.com Copyright The product of each order has its own encryption code, so you should use it independently. Any unauthorized changes will inflict legal punishment. We reserve the right of final explanation for this statement. iSQI - CTAL-TAE_V2 Certs Exam 1 of 8 Pass with Valid Exam Questions Pool A. B. C. D. A. B. Question #:1 You are evaluating the best approach to implement automated tests at the UI level for a web app. Specifically, your goal is to allow test analysts to write automated tests in tabular format, within files that encapsulate logical test steps related to how a user interacts with the web UI, along with the corresponding test data. These steps must be expressed using natural language words that represent the actions performed by the user on the web UI. These files will then be interpreted and executed by a test execution tool. Which of the following approaches to test automation is BEST suited to achieve your goal? Test-driven development Keyword-driven testing Data-driven testing Linear scripting Answer: B Explanation The described goal matches the defining characteristics of keyword-driven testing: tests are expressed using keywords (action words) that represent user operations, often arranged in tabular form with parameters/test data. TAE describes keyword-driven approaches as enabling non-programmers (e.g., test analysts) to create and maintain tests by combining high-level keywords such as “Open Browser,” “Click,” “Enter Text,” “Select,” “Verify Text,” etc., while the underlying automation framework maps those keywords to executable code. The use of files interpreted by a test execution tool is also typical: keyword tables (or similar structured specifications) are read and executed by the automation engine. Data-driven testing focuses on separating test logic from test data, typically running the same script multiple times with different datasets; it does not inherently require natural-language action words or tabular step definitions (though it can be combined). Linear scripting is code-centric and not aligned with analyst-authored natural language step tables. TDD is unrelated to the requirement of tabular, natural-language keyword specification for UI test steps. Therefore, keyword-driven testing is the best fit for the stated approach. Question #:2 Automated tests at the UI level for a web app adopt an asynchronous waiting mechanism that allows them to synchronize test steps with the app, so that they are executed correctly and at the right time, only when the app is ready and has processed the previous step: this is done when there are no timeouts or pending asynchronous requests. In this way, the tests automatically synchronize with the app's web pages. The same initialization tasks to set test preconditions are implemented as test steps for all tests. Regarding the pre- processing (Setup) features defined at the test suite level, the TAS provides both a Suite Setup (which runs exactly once when the suite starts) and a Test Setup (which runs at the start of each test case in the suite). Which of the following recommendations would you provide for improving the TAS (assuming it is possible to perform all of them)? Adopt a manual synchronization with the app’s web pages using hard-coded waits instead of the current automatic synchronization iSQI - CTAL-TAE_V2 Certs Exam 2 of 8 Pass with Valid Exam Questions Pool B. C. D. A. B. C. D. Implement the initialization tasks aimed at setting the preconditions of the tests within the Test Setup feature at the test suite level Adopt a manual synchronization with the app’s web pages using dynamic waits via polling instead of the current automatic synchronization Implement the initialization tasks aimed at setting the preconditions of the tests within the Suite Setup feature at the test suite level Answer: B Explanation TAE strongly discourages replacing robust, app-aware synchronization with manual waits. Automatic synchronization based on application readiness signals (e.g., no pending async requests) reduces flakiness and unnecessary delays. Hard-coded waits (A) are brittle and slow; polling waits (C) can be better than fixed sleeps but are still generally inferior to event/readiness-based synchronization already in place. The improvement opportunity described is that the same initialization steps are repeated in every test as explicit test steps, which increases test script length, duplication, and maintenance effort. TAE recommends centralizing common setup logic using framework setup/teardown mechanisms to enforce consistency and reduce duplication. Since the initialization tasks are needed to set preconditions for each test (so each test starts from a known state and remains independent), they belong in the Test Setup, which runs before each test case. Putting them in Suite Setup (D) would run them only once, risking that later tests inherit polluted state, making tests interdependent and more brittle. Therefore, moving shared per-test initialization tasks into the Test Setup is the best recommendation. Question #:3 A TAS is used to run on a test environment a suite of automated regression tests, written at the UI level, on different releases of a web app: all executions complete successfully, always providing correct results (i.e., producing neither false positives nor false negatives). The tests, all independent of each other, consist of executable test scripts based on the flow model pattern which has been implemented in a three-layer TAF (test scripts, business logic, core libraries) by expanding the page object model via the façade pattern. Currently the suite takes too long to run, and the test scripts are considered too long in terms of LOC (Lines of Code). Which of the following recommendations would you provide for improving the TAS (assuming it is possible to perform all of them)? Modify the TAF so that test scripts are based on the page object model, rather than the flow model pattern Implement a mechanism to automatically reboot the entire web app in the event of a crash Split the suite into sub-suites and run each of them concurrently on different test environments Modify the architecture of the SUT to improve its testability and, if necessary, the TAA accordingly Answer: C Explanation iSQI - CTAL-TAE_V2 Certs Exam 3 of 8 Pass with Valid Exam Questions Pool A. B. C. D. The primary problem is execution time; correctness and independence are already strong. TAE recommends improving feedback time for long-running regression suites by parallelizing execution when tests are independent and the infrastructure supports it. Because the tests are explicitly independent, they are well- suited to parallel execution across multiple environments (or multiple nodes within an environment), reducing overall wall-clock duration without changing test intent. Option B addresses crash recovery, but the scenario says executions complete successfully; crash recovery does not solve the current bottleneck. Option A changes the modeling pattern; it may or may not reduce LOC, but it introduces risk and rework without directly addressing runtime. Also, flow model and façade-expanded page objects are already architectural choices aimed at maintainability and reuse; replacing them is not the most direct solution for speed. Option D (improving SUT testability) can help in general, but it is invasive, expensive, and not targeted to the stated issue when tests already yield correct results. Therefore, the best improvement is to split the suite and run parts concurrently on different environments to reduce total execution time, consistent with TAE guidance on scaling automation execution. Question #:4 Which of the following layers within the TAA contains technology-specific implementations that enable automated tests to have the execution of their logical actions result in actual interaction with the appropriate interfaces of the SUT? Test generation layer Test definition layer Test execution layer Test adaptation layer Answer: D Explanation TAE describes layered automation architectures where higher layers express intent and test logic, while lower layers handle concrete interaction with specific technologies and interfaces. The test adaptation layer is the layer that “adapts” abstract test actions to the real SUT interaction mechanisms. It typically contains technology-specific adapters, drivers, wrappers, or connectors (e.g., browser drivers, mobile automation bridges, API clients, message-bus connectors, database utilities) that translate logical operations like “click login,” “submit order,” or “query customer” into the correct low-level calls for the target interface. This is where the details of protocols, locator strategies, synchronization primitives, data access methods, and tool- specific APIs live, shielding higher layers from churn when technologies change. The test execution layer is responsible for orchestrating execution (running suites, scheduling, collecting results, reporting), but not primarily for implementing the technology-specific SUT interaction itself. The test definition layer focuses on how tests are specified (scripts, keywords, models, data), and the test generation layer concerns deriving tests (e.g., model-based generation). Therefore, the layer containing technology-specific implementations enabling actual interaction with SUT interfaces is the test adaptation layer. Question #:5 (Which of the following statements refers to a typical advantage of test automation?) iSQI - CTAL-TAE_V2 Certs Exam 4 of 8 Pass with Valid Exam Questions Pool A. B. C. D. A. B. C. D. Automated tests can determine whether actual results match expected results, even for non-machine- interpretable results On average, automated tests written at the API level are likely to run faster than automated tests written at the UI level Artificial intelligence can be used to help identify redundant tests within large, long-running automated regression test suites Automated tests can allow defects to be detected earlier than manual tests because their execution times can be shorter Answer: B Explanation In the ISTQB Test Automation Engineer (TAE) body of knowledge, a core, typical advantage of test automation is faster feedback through efficient execution, especially when tests are implemented at lower levels (e.g., API/service) rather than through the UI. UI tests inherently traverse more layers (browser, rendering, client-side code, network timing, and often multiple back-end calls), so they tend to be slower and more brittle. API-level tests bypass most UI-related overhead and interact closer to business logic/services, reducing execution time and improving reliability. Option A is incorrect because many results (e.g., visual aesthetics, subjective usability, tone, or “looks right”) are not reliably machine-interpretable without specialized approaches and still often require human judgment. Option C may be possible in some contexts, but “AI redundancy identification” is not a typical, foundational advantage emphasized as a standard automation benefit. Option D is misleading: early defect detection is mainly achieved by earlier and more frequent execution (e.g., CI) and shifting tests left, not merely because a single automated run is shorter than manual execution. Therefore, the most typical advantage presented is that API automation generally runs faster than UI automation. Question #:6 Which of the following recommendations can help improve the maintainability of test automation code? Use error codes in test automation code instead of exceptions (if exceptions are supported by the programming language) for error handling Avoid producing test automation code containing methods with too many levels of nesting, as deeply nested code is more difficult to understand Avoid adopting design patterns that introduce high levels of abstraction in test automation code, such as the flow model pattern Avoid using static analyzers on test automation code and other development tools, as they are designed to improve the maintainability of SUT code Answer: B Explanation iSQI - CTAL-TAE_V2 Certs Exam 5 of 8 Pass with Valid Exam Questions Pool A. B. C. D. TAE emphasizes that maintainable automation code should be readable, understandable, and easy to modify when the SUT or test intent changes. Deeply nested logic increases cognitive load, makes control flow harder to follow, and complicates debugging and refactoring—especially in automation where synchronization, retries, and error handling are common. Therefore, avoiding excessive nesting is a direct, widely applicable maintainability recommendation. Option A is generally contrary to modern maintainability guidance: exceptions (used appropriately) typically provide clearer error propagation and richer diagnostic information than manual error codes scattered across call chains. Option C is too broad and misleading: abstraction and patterns are often recommended by TAE to manage complexity and improve maintainability (when applied appropriately); the issue is not “patterns,” but misusing them or overengineering. Option D is incorrect because static analysis and developer tooling can substantially improve automation code quality by detecting issues such as dead code, complexity hotspots, duplicated code, insecure practices, and style violations. Thus, the most aligned maintainability recommendation in TAE terms is to avoid overly nested methods. Question #:7 Which of the following statements about a test progress report produced for an automated test suite is TRUE? The test progress report should indicate, for each test in the suite, the timestamps related to the test steps The content of the test progress report should not be affected by the stakeholders to whom the report is intended The test progress report should indicate the test environment in which the tests were performed The test progress report should indicate, for each test in the suite, the start and end timestamps of the test Answer: C Explanation TAE reporting guidance emphasizes that stakeholders must be able to interpret results in context. A fundamental contextual attribute is the test environment: where the SUT was deployed, what configuration was used, and (by implication) what data and integrations were in play. Without environment identification, results can be misleading, non-reproducible, or not comparable across runs (e.g., failures caused by environment instability vs. product defects). Therefore, including the environment in the progress report is a core requirement. Option B is incorrect because TAE explicitly promotes tailoring reports to stakeholder needs; different audiences require different levels of detail, summaries, and views. Option A is generally too granular for a progress report: step-level timestamps belong more to detailed execution logs and troubleshooting artifacts, not to a progress report intended to communicate status efficiently. Option D may be included in some reports, but it is not as universally required as the environment identifier; and in TAE, “progress report” tends to focus on overall status (what ran, what passed/failed, trends, coverage, environment) rather than per-test timing metadata. Thus, the reliably true statement is that the report should indicate the test environment. Question #:8 To improve the maintainability of test automation code, it is recommended to adopt design principles and design patterns that allow the code to be structured into: iSQI - CTAL-TAE_V2 Certs Exam 6 of 8 Pass with Valid Exam Questions Pool A. B. C. D. A. B. C. D. Highly coupled and loosely cohesive modules Highly coupled and highly cohesive modules Loosely coupled and highly cohesive modules Loosely coupled and loosely cohesive modules Answer: C Explanation TAE aligns maintainable automation with classic software design fundamentals: modules should have clear responsibilities (high cohesion) and minimal dependencies on one another (low coupling). High cohesion means each module focuses on a well-defined purpose—e.g., a page object responsible only for UI element interaction for a page, or an API client responsible only for a service boundary—making it easier to understand, test, and change. Low coupling means changes in one module are less likely to ripple across many others, which is crucial in test automation where UI locators, workflows, and environments change frequently. Patterns and principles promoted in TAE contexts (e.g., layered frameworks, encapsulation, separation of concerns, façade/page objects, adapters) are commonly used to achieve this structure. Options A and D are undesirable because low cohesion increases confusion and duplication, while high coupling increases fragility and maintenance cost. Option B (high coupling, high cohesion) still leaves the codebase vulnerable to cascading changes and tight dependencies on tools or SUT details. Therefore, the recommended structure for maintainable test automation code is loosely coupled and highly cohesive modules. Question #:9 A TAS that performs automated testing in a single test environment was successfully manually installed and configured from a central repository, with all its components in the correct versions. It was also verified that all TAS components in this environment are capable of providing reliable and repeatable performance. The TAS will be used to run several suites of automated regression test scripts on various SUTs in the test environment. Your current goal is to complete all preliminary verifications to ensure that the TAS works correctly. Which of the following activities would you perform FIRST? Create scripts to automatically install and configure the TAS in the test environment from the central repository Check whether the TAS connectivity to all required internal systems, external systems, and interfaces is available Run a given suite multiple times using TAS to determine whether all regression test scripts always provide the same result Check whether all regression test scripts in a given suite have expected results Answer: B Explanation iSQI - CTAL-TAE_V2 Certs Exam 7 of 8 Pass with Valid Exam Questions Pool A. B. C. D. TAE differentiates verifying the automation environment and infrastructure (the ability of the TAS to operate) from verifying the test suites’ correctness (the behavior of specific automated tests). The scenario states the TAS was installed correctly and its components perform reliably in isolation. The next preliminary verification is ensuring the TAS can actually interact with the necessary systems and interfaces required to execute tests end-to-end: SUT endpoints, browsers/devices, authentication services, databases, messaging systems, third-party integrations, and any CI/CD or artifact services it must access. If connectivity is missing or unstable, any subsequent suite executions or repeatability checks can fail for reasons unrelated to test logic, creating noise and wasted investigation. Creating installation scripts (A) is valuable for scalability, but it is not needed to confirm the TAS works in the already-installed single environment. Checking expected results in scripts (D) and running suites repeatedly for determinism (C) are important, but they assume the TAS can reliably reach all required dependencies. TAE recommends validating connectivity and access prerequisites early as a gate for meaningful execution. Therefore, the first activity is to verify TAS connectivity to all required internal/external systems and interfaces. Question #:10 A new TAS allows the implementation of automated data-driven test scripts. All the tasks planned for the initial deployment of this TAS, aimed at installing and configuring the TAS components and provisioning the infrastructure, will be performed manually by a dedicated, specialized team. This TAS is expected to be deployed in the future in other similar environments. As a TAE, you see a risk that the correct and reproducible deployment of the TAS cannot be guaranteed. Which of the following options is BEST suited for mitigating this risk? Nothing needs to be done, because the team that will manually perform the specified tasks, as they are specialized, will not make mistakes and will therefore be able to ensure a correct and reproducible deployment Partition the data tables containing test data used by data-driven test scripts into smaller data tables, using an appropriate logical criterion, to make them more manageable Review data-driven test scripts to better organize test libraries by adding test functions containing identical sequences of actions commonly implemented in a relevant number of scripts Try to automate most of the tasks related to the installation and configuration of the TAS components and those related to the provisioning of the infrastructure Answer: D Explanation TAE guidance treats repeatable, reliable deployment of the Test Automation Solution as a foundational requirement, especially when the TAS will be rolled out to multiple environments. Manual installation and provisioning are error-prone and difficult to reproduce consistently, even with skilled teams, due to small variations in steps, configuration drift, and undocumented assumptions. The recommended mitigation is to automate deployment activities using repeatable mechanisms (e.g., scripted installation, configuration management, Infrastructure as Code, versioned environment definitions). This supports traceability (what changed and when), repeatability (same inputs produce same environment), and rapid recovery (rebuild environments quickly after failure). Option A is explicitly unsafe because human processes are never guaranteed error-free and do not scale well across environments. Options B and C focus on test data and library organization, which can improve test maintainability, but they do not address the stated risk: iSQI - CTAL-TAE_V2 Certs Exam 8 of 8 Pass with Valid Exam Questions Pool inconsistent and non-reproducible TAS deployment. By automating installation/configuration and infrastructure provisioning, the organization reduces deployment variance and ensures that future deployments of the TAS can be performed reliably, consistently, and auditable across similar environments, aligning directly with TAE best practices for sustaining automation at scale. About certsout.com certsout.com was founded in 2007. We provide latest & high quality IT / Business Certification Training Exam Questions, Study Guides, Practice Tests. We help you pass any IT / Business Certification Exams with 100% Pass Guaranteed or Full Refund. Especially Cisco, CompTIA, Citrix, EMC, HP, Oracle, VMware, Juniper, Check Point, LPI, Nortel, EXIN and so on. View list of all certification exams: All vendors We prepare state-of-the art practice tests for certification exams. You can reach us at any of the email addresses listed below. Sales: sales@certsout.com Feedback: feedback@certsout.com Support: support@certsout.com Any problems about IT certification or our products, You can write us back and we will get back to you within 24 hours.