Development-Lifecycle-and-Deployment-Architect Exam Dumps - Salesforce Developer Questions and Answers

A requirement traceability matrix is a project artifact that maps each requirement to its corresponding test cases, ensuring that all requirements are covered by testing. User acceptance test scripts are the actual steps to execute the test cases, not the artifact that links them to the requirements. Testing strategy and test execution plan are high-level documents that describe the overall approach and schedule for testing, not the specific mapping of requirements and test cases.

The data model becomes more complex as the scope in the org increases, and the declarative sharing and visibility capabilities may not be sufficient to ensure correct visibility of objects and records for multiple LOBs. Apex design and multiple currencies are not specific challenges for a single-org strategy.

Implementing a Hub-and-Spoke multi-org strategy by consolidating customer data in a single org, which will be the master of customer data, and using integration strategies to let the LOBs orgs read and write from it is one of the options an architect can recommend to accomplish the customer 360-degree view. This way, the architect can ensure that there is a single source of truth for the customer data, and that the data is consistent and synchronized across the different orgs. Implementing a Single Package multi-org strategy by developing and deploying to all orgs a managed package which reads and consolidates customer 360-degree view from the different orgs is another option an architect can recommend, as it allows the architect to create a reusable and scalable solution that can provide a unified view of the customer data from multiple sources. Implementing a Complete Graph multi-org strategy or migrating from multi-org to single-org strategy are not feasible or optimal options, as they can introduce complexity, cost, or risk to the architecture.

 In the post refresh plan, modifying external ids to a known valid set of values for UAT is the best way to resolve the issue of objects that have external ids from production no longer pointing to valid external ids in the UAT environment. This way, the data integrity and consistency across the integrated systems can be maintained. Letting UAT point to production integrations and rolling back each transaction after it finishes is not a good practice, as it can cause data loss or corruption in production. Deleting all the data and using an automated testing tool to create new data across all the systems in UAT is not feasible, as it can take a lot of time and resources. Masking the external id so nobody can see the production value is not a solution, as it does not address the underlying problem of invalid references.

To reduce deployment time, UC can use the following strategies:

Use recent deployment validations and the quick deploy feature, which can allow them to skip the validation step in production and deploy the changes faster, if they have already validated the changes in a sandbox within the last four days.

Specify the test to run by using RunSpecifiedTests test level, which can allow them to run only the tests that are relevant to the components being deployed, instead of running all the tests in the org.

A and B are the correct answers, as installing an Aloha certified app and upgrading to an Enterprise Edition org are the best solutions to enable advanced quoting in the current Professional Edition org. An Aloha certified app is an app that does not count against the org limits, such as objects and tabs, and can provide additional functionality and features. Upgrading to an Enterprise Edition org can increase the org limits, as well as provide access to more customization and automation options. C is incorrect, as creating and installing an unmanaged package is not a good solution, as it will consume the org limits and may not provide the desired functionality. D is incorrect, as buying more user licenses will not increase the org limits, but only the number of users who can access the org. You can learn more about this topic in the Salesforce Editions and Limits module on Trailhead.

 Generating a code review checklist to ensure consistency between reviews and different reviewers and conducting a review that combines human efforts and automatic checks by the tool to detect all flaws are two recommended practices to follow when conducting secure code reviews, as they can help improve the quality and security of the code and reduce the risk of vulnerabilities or errors. Focusing on the aggregated reviews to save time and effort, to remove the need to continuously monitor each meaningful change is not a good practice, as it can miss important details or changes that can affect the code functionality or security. Using the code review software as the tool to flag which developer has committed the errors, so the developer can improve is not a constructive way of conducting code reviews, as it can create a blame culture and discourage collaboration and learning. See Secure Coding Guidelines for more details.

Deploying metadata to production orgs using package development model is the best option for the multi-org deployment strategy, as it allows you to create modular and reusable packages that can be easily installed and updated across different orgs. Deploying metadata to production orgs using managed packages is not suitable for this scenario, as managed packages are typically used by ISVs to distribute their applications to customers, and they have some limitations and restrictions that may not fit the requirements of UC. Deploying metadata to production orgs using unmanaged packages is also not a good option, as unmanaged packages are mainly used for one-time distribution of components, and they do not support upgrades or dependencies. Deploying metadata to production orgs using change sets is not feasible for this scenario, as change sets can only be used to deploy metadata between connected orgs in the same Salesforce instance, and UC has separate orgs for each region. See [Package Development Model] for more details.

The architect should recommend backing up the existing metadata using the ANT Migration Tool. To roll back deployment, deploy again to production using backed up metadata. This strategy allows the team to restore the previous state of the production org in case of any issues with the deployment. Creating a sandbox from production to take the backup of existing metadata is not necessary and may take longer time. Using destructivechanges.xml to delete new components is not a reliable way to roll back deployment, as it may not remove all the dependencies and references. Manually deleting new components is also not a feasible option, as it may be error-prone and time-consuming.

The best practice for moving classes between packages is to set them as deprecated in the source package and recreate them in the target package. This way, the existing subscribers of the source package will not be affected by the change, and the new subscribers of the target package will get the updated classes. Moving the classes directly or changing their names can cause compilation errors and dependency issues.