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

 Creating a release calendar, training and aligning all the teams is the best way to avoid conflicts and ensure smooth releases between major, minor, and Salesforce seasonal releases. A release calendar can help the teams plan ahead, coordinate their efforts, and avoid overlapping or conflicting changes. Training and aligning the teams can help them understand the release processes, the best practices, and the expectations for each release type. Gating all release decisions at the center of excellence, sharing the test plans, or creating a spreadsheet of metadata changes are not sufficient or scalable solutions for this problem.

Refreshing all non-preview sandboxes during the release preview window is the best way to handle the situation of having a mix of preview and non-preview instances for the release of a major project. A release preview window is a period of time before a Salesforce seasonal release, where the customers can test their applications and integrations in a sandbox that has the same version as the upcoming release. By refreshing all non-preview sandboxes during this window, the architect can ensure that all the sandboxes are aligned with the same version and avoid any conflicts or errors during the deployment. Refreshing the sandboxes when the release management team has time, mixing instance types, or contacting support to rollback the release are not good practices, as they can cause inconsistency, confusion, or disruption in the release process.

Following an ALM process can help avoid defects from being deployed to production, by ensuring that the code is tested and validated in different environments before reaching the end users. It can also help release new features on a consistent schedule, by establishing a clear roadmap and timeline for the development and deployment phases. Moreover, it can help prevent existing working functionality from stopping, by implementing backup and rollback strategies, as well as monitoring and troubleshooting tools. Training new users after each minor and major release is not a benefit of ALM, but rather a best practice for user adoption and change management. Defining metrics for application development project success is not a benefit of ALM, but rather a part of the project management and evaluation process.

Using static code analysis to enforce coding standards is the best way to improve consistency among the development teams working on different projects. Static code analysis is a tool that can automatically scan the code and detect any violations of the predefined coding rules and best practices. It can also provide feedback and suggestions to the developers on how to improve their code quality and readability. Creating a Center of Excellence for release management, requiring pull requests to be reviewed by two developers before merging, or executing regression testing before code can be committed are also good practices, but they are not as effective or efficient as static code analysis for ensuring coding consistency.

Minor changes should be thoroughly documented and follow some type of standard cadence, as this can help maintain the audit trail and visibility of the changes. All changes should still be tested, even if they are minor, as they can have unexpected impacts on other parts of the system or introduce bugs or security issues. Downstream environments will not be automatically updated when production changes are made, so it is important to have a strategy to keep them in sync and avoid conflicts or overwrites. Minor changes do not need to be documented and can be made at any time is a wrong statement, as it can lead to poor governance and lack of accountability. CI/CD is not required to successfully manage minor changes, although it can help automate and streamline the process. See Application Lifecycle and Deployment for more details.

Pairing with the administrator and reviewing each change as it happens is the best way to handle the situation of discovering a Sev0 defect in production. This way, the architect can ensure that the changes are done correctly and quickly, without compromising the quality or security of the application. The architect can also provide guidance and feedback to the administrator, as well as monitor the impact and outcome of the changes. Denying the suggestion, explaining that only developers are certified to make changes, or calling the security team are not advisable actions, as they can delay the resolution of the defect, increase the damage, or create unnecessary conflict.

The recommended mechanism for releasing the application that can be installed in the trading partners’ Salesforce environments is a managed package. A managed package is a collection of application components that can be distributed and installed in other orgs. Managed packages allow you to control the visibility and upgradability of the components, as well as provide namespace isolation and license management. Change sets are not suitable for releasing applications to other orgs, as they can only be used for orgs that are affiliated with the same production org. Unmanaged packages are not ideal for releasing applications that need to be updated frequently, as they do not allow you to push upgrades or control the components after installation. Zip file deployable by SFDX or ANT is not a user-friendly way of releasing applications, as it requires the users to have technical knowledge and tools to install the components.

The best option is to ensure the sandbox will be on the release preview, which means it will be upgraded to the new platform release before the production environment. This will allow the team to test the deployment in a realistic scenario and catch any potential issues. Option A is not ideal, as the staging and production support sandboxes will not be on the same platform version as the production environment. Option C is also not ideal, as the production support sandbox will not be on the same platform version as the production environment. Option D is risky, as the staging sandbox refresh may not complete in time for the go-live.

 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.

Maintaining separate developer branches for minor and major releases, maintaining a single repository for applications with individual branches for projects, and maintaining a single-entry point for production from the master branch are three best practices that UC should consider for version control. These practices help to:

Isolate and manage different types of changes in separate branches, such as bug fixes, enhancements, or new features1.

Organize and track the code and configuration for each application and project in a logical and consistent way2.

Ensure that the master branch reflects the current state of production and that only tested and approved changes are deployed to production