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
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.
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
Its D here, fits all the criteria around maintainability and tool independence. Linear would be faster initially but a pain later.
D , C trips people up but maintenance and tool independence rule that one out for this scenario.
D , but if CLI tests had to plug directly into a tool's custom framework, B could actually end up faster to build. Since they're asking for both low maintenance and high tool independence, structured scripting (D) checks every box here. Anyone see that twist show up in other practice sets?
C/D? Linear scripting (C) is fast for small cases, but maintenance gets rough and it's tied to the tool. D, structured scripting, makes it easier to maintain and adapt-plus better tool independence. I think D fits all three requirements best, but I get why some might lean C for quick wins.
Be respectful. No spam.