Q: 1
You have been asked to automate a set of functional tests at system Test level via the CLI of the SUT
for the first release of a software system. The automated tests will be delivered to the learn in
change of maintenance testing, who will use them for part of the regression testing. They have the
following requirements.
1. The automated tests must be as fast and cheap to maintain as possible
2. The cost of adding new automated tests must be as low as possible
3. The automated tests must have a high level of independence from the tool itself
Which of the following scripting techniques would be MOST suitable?
Options
Discussion
C/D? I'd probably go with D since structured scripting means you can reuse code for CLI stuff and it's easy to maintain, plus you aren't locked into a specific tool. C is quicker to set up but doesn't scale well if requirements change. Anyone disagree?
Option D fits best. Structured scripting is modular so you get reusable functions, which makes updates and adding new tests easier and cheaper over time. Plus, that abstraction helps minimize tool dependency. Pretty sure D is the right call here, but correct me if you see it differently.
Makes sense to go with D here. Structured scripting is more modular, so maintaining and updating tests over time is easier and cheaper, plus it keeps tool dependencies low. Pretty sure it's what the question is looking for, though let me know if you see it differently.
Its D, B is tempting but structured scripting nails tool independence for maintenance.
Honestly, I'd go with B. Keyword-driven scripting feels cheaper to maintain and makes it easy to add new tests fast, especially when requirements change. Not 100% sure with the tool independence part but for most projects I've seen, B usually works well.
I don't think it's B. D matches the maintenance and tool independence requirements much better here. Structured scripting lets you reuse functions so edits and new tests are quicker and less tied to one tool. Keyword-driven (B) is flexible but still often depends on a framework's features so maybe not ideal for maximum portability. Pretty sure D is the way to go, but open to other thoughts.
Why would B (keyword-driven) be better here? Isn't D more maintainable and tool-independent in the long run?
C vs D. Had something like this in a mock and D was the answer there too.
C/D? C might look tempting since linear scripting is super quick to set up, but it usually gets messy to maintain and ties you to the tool. D (structured scripting) fits better for long-term low effort and tool independence. Pretty sure D's the best match for all requirements here, unless someone's got a different angle.
If you look at requirement 3 (tool independence), that really rules out C even if it's tempting for speed. D
Be respectful. No spam.