Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Microsoft Exam AZ-400 Topic 4 Question 95 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's AZ-400 exam
Question #: 95
Topic #: 4
[All AZ-400 Questions]

Note: This question is part of a series of questions that present the same scenario. Each question in the series contains a unique solution that might meet the stated goals. Some question sets might have more than one correct solution, while others might not have a correct solution.

After you answer a question in this section, you will NOT be able to return to it. As a result, these questions will not appear in the review screen.

You have an Azure pipeline that is used to deploy a web app. The pipeline includes a test suite named TestSuite1. TestSuite1 is used to validate the operations of the web app.

TestSuite1 fails intermittently.

You identify that the failures are unrelated to changes in the source code and execution environment.

You need to minimize troubleshooting effort for the TestSuite1 failures.

Solution: You increase code coverage.

Does this meet the goal?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

Contribute your Thoughts:

Fannie
6 months ago
Got it. I'll go with 'No' too.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annamae
7 months ago
So, 'B' then. Increasing coverage can't fix unrelated issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Charlette
7 months ago
Exactly, it's more about test reliability.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fletcher
7 months ago
I think it should be 'No'. Code coverage doesn't really address intermittent test failures.
upvoted 0 times
...
Serina
7 months ago
Yeah, increasing code coverage to reduce failures sounds odd.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fannie
7 months ago
This question seems tricky.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77