Development-Lifecycle-and-Deployment-Architect Salesforce Certified Development Lifecycle and Deployment Architect (WI25) Questions and Answers

The best way to migrate from a managed package to an unlocked package is to split the components into two packages: one for the objects and fields, and one for the classes, Visualforce, and other components. This way, the data and integrations with the objects and fields of the managed package are preserved, and the classes and Visualforce can be modified and deployed using CI/CD processes with the unlocked package. Exporting and restoring the data from the managed package is not a feasible solution, as it would require a lot of effort and risk data loss or corruption. Installing the unlocked package with the same namespace as the managed package is not possible, as namespaces are unique and cannot be reused. Staying with the managed package is not a good option, as it does not allow for better integration with CI/CD processes.

The best way to stop the rollbacks from happening is to ensure report metadata is exported daily and that it is merged into the developer branches before the next release. This way, the reports and dashboards will be up to date and consistent across all environments. Using a third-party data warehouse is not a solution, as it does not address the root cause of the rollbacks. Removing the executive’s ability to change reports is not a good practice, as it limits their flexibility and autonomy. Backing up and reimporting the reports before and after the release is not a reliable or scalable solution, as it can introduce errors and inconsistencies.

Test classes should execute under various profiles to ensure that the code works for different user permissions and sharing settings. Test data must have positive as well as negative data to cover all possible scenarios and edge cases.

Announcing the maintenance window ahead of time, defining a rollback strategy, and temporarily suspending configuration changes in production are all best practices for production deployment. These practices help to minimize the risk of errors, downtime, and conflicts during the deployment process.

 Fixing the issue in hotfix, testing, and deploying to production is the best option when UC has PI issues and has to be fixed immediately. A hotfix sandbox is a type of sandbox that is used for emergency fixes in production. It is a copy of the production org and has a shorter refresh interval than other sandboxes. A hotfix sandbox allows the team to quickly fix and test the issue without affecting the ongoing development and release cycles.

The best option for the new BU is to use a new stand-alone Salesforce org, not integrated with the others. This will allow the new BU to have flexibility in their business processes, without affecting or being affected by the other BUs. Since the new BU does not share customers with the other BUs, there is no need to integrate with the customer 360-degree view org, which would add complexity and cost. Deploying the new BU in the customer 360-degree view org is not a good idea, as it would create confusion and duplication of data, as well as limit the customization options for the new BU. Using the same Salesforce org of another BU that shares geographical localization with the new BU is also not a good idea, as it would create conflicts and dependencies between the two BUs, as well as reduce the performance and security of the org. Using a new Salesforce org for the new BU, and customizing integration so that it reads and writes customer information from the customer data org is unnecessary and inefficient, as the new BU does not need to access or update the customer data of the other BUs.

 The sfdx force:source:retrieve command is used to retrieve the metadata from an org to a local project directory. However, before running this command, the developer needs to create a project using the sfdx force:project:create command, and then navigate to the project directory using the cd command. If the developer hasn’t done these steps, they will get the error message: “This command is required to run from within an SFDX project”. The -n option is not required for the sfdx force:project:create command, as it will prompt the developer to enter a project name interactively. The developer can create the project within VSCode and run the command in a separate terminal, as long as they are in the same project directory.

Program team and executive sponsors are two user groups that an architect should recommend to join the COE. A program team is a group of people who are responsible for managing and delivering the Salesforce projects and initiatives. They can provide the COE with the technical expertise, best practices, and project management skills. An executive sponsor is a senior leader who supports and advocates for the Salesforce program. They can provide the COE with the strategic direction, business alignment, and funding support.

D is the correct answer, as automated testing is the best approach to mitigate the risk of bugs being inadvertently introduced to production. Automated testing can help to ensure that the code meets the quality and functionality standards, as well as detect and prevent any errors or regressions before deploying to production. A is incorrect, as user acceptance testing is not enough to mitigate the risk of bugs, as it depends on the manual testing and feedback of the end users, which can be subjective and incomplete. B is incorrect, as the use of an agile methodology is not directly related to mitigating the risk of bugs, as it is a way of managing the project scope, requirements, and delivery. C is incorrect, as requirements traceability is not directly related to mitigating the risk of bugs, as it is a way of tracking the requirements and their fulfillment. You can learn more about this topic in the Testing Strategies module on Trailhead.

C and D are the correct answers, as they are the best strategies to address a critical production issue occurring in the middle of development. C is correct, as using a source control system to allow separate branches for current development and production bug fixes can help to isolate the changes and avoid conflicts or overwriting. D is correct, as refreshing a sandbox for replication of the issue and testing the use-case scenarios once the code is fixed can help to ensure the quality and functionality of the solution before deploying it to production. A is incorrect, as creating separate branches for current development and production bug fixes and deploying the fix with current development when ready can delay the resolution of the production issue and introduce new risks or errors. B is incorrect, as utilizing one branch for both development and production bug fixes to avoid out-of-sync branches and simplify deployment can create confusion and complexity in the code and make it harder to test and validate. You can learn more about these strategies in the Application Lifecycle and Deployment module on Trailhead.

This is the correct answer because having developers work in separate branches and merge their changes in a common branch for testing can reduce the risk of overwriting others’ changes and ensure code quality and consistency. Having all developers work in the same branch or in the HEAD may cause conflicts and errors. Not using source control is not a good practice and may result in data loss and lack of version control.

The architect should recommend creating two second generation managed packages with the same namespace and setting the methods that should be shared with the @namespaceAccessible annotation. This will allow the Sales team to access the specific functions of the Service product without exposing them to other teams or customers. Creating two managed packages with different namespaces will not allow the Sales team to access the Service functions, unless they are declared as global, which will expose them to everyone. Creating a managed package with both products will not allow the separation of the products and the control of the functions. Creating an authentication function in the Service package will add unnecessary complexity and overhead to the solution.

: Storing the records in sandboxes and production is not a good practice, as it can lead to data inconsistencies and conflicts. Storing the records in a version control system is a better option, as it allows tracking changes and deploying them to different environments. Using a third-party product to manage these records is also a valid option, as it can provide features such as data backup, restore, and migration.

 Creating a Center of Excellence with a charter document is a recommended practice for managing multiple projects and aligning them with the business goals and roadmap. A Center of Excellence is a cross-functional team that provides guidance, support, and governance for the Salesforce ecosystem. A charter document defines the vision, mission, roles, and responsibilities of the Center of Excellence.

Implementing the change in the sandbox, validating, and releasing to production and considering that the integration with the ERP system may not function as expected are two considerations when addressing the requirement. The change should be performed in the sandbox first, as it is a best practice to test any changes in a non-production environment before deploying them to production. The change may also affect the integration with the ERP system, as it may require updating the mappings, validations, or transformations between the two systems.

Facilitating the design of a prioritization model with the stakeholders is the best way to overcome the problem of having many backlog items and competing stakeholders who cannot agree on priority. A prioritization model is a framework that helps the stakeholders evaluate and rank the backlog items based on various criteria, such as value, urgency, effort, risk, etc. By using a prioritization model, the stakeholders can have a clear and objective way of deciding which items are more important and should be done first. Organizing a sprint planning meeting, taking over prioritization, or allowing the delivery teams to pick the work are not effective solutions, as they do not address the root cause of the problem or involve the stakeholders in the decision-making process.

The product team should review the Checkmarx errors and determine if they need to fix them or not. If the errors are false positives, meaning that they do not indicate a real security issue, the product team should mark them as such and attach an explanation, then submit the security review. This will help the Salesforce security review team to understand the rationale behind the code and avoid unnecessary rejections. The product team should not leave the errors to the Salesforce security review team, as they may reject the request if they find any potential security issue. The product team should not leave a partner support case, as this is not the proper channel for resolving code issues. The product team should not fix all the errors before submitting the security review, as some of them may not be relevant or critical, and fixing them may introduce new bugs or delays.

 Design standards can help ensure consistency and quality of the code and configuration across multiple project teams. They can also prevent design conflicts and reduce technical debt.

The fastest approach to spin off a sandbox with up to 10,000 records in each object for testing the integration performance is to spin off a partial copy sandbox using a sandbox template with all the objects required for testing the integration. A partial copy sandbox can copy up to 10,000 records per object using a sandbox template that specifies the objects and fields to copy. A partial copy sandbox can also copy the metadata and the configuration settings from the production org. A developer pro sandbox, a development sandbox, or a full copy sandbox may not be able to copy enough data for testing the integration performance, as they have lower data storage limits. A developer pro sandbox and a development sandbox can only copy 1 GB of data, while a full copy sandbox can only copy 5 GB of data. A full copy sandbox may also take longer to spin-off, as it copies all the data and metadata from the production org.

This is the correct answer because a partial copy sandbox can provide a subset of production data that is refreshed every 5 days. This way, the user acceptance and functional teams can test independently in isolation, and on current production data that was modified within the last week. A developer pro sandbox has a limited data storage and cannot store enough data for testing. A developer sandbox has no data and is only suitable for development and testing of code. A full sandbox can provide a complete copy of production data, but it can only be refreshed every 29 days, which may not meet the requirement of testing on data that was modified within the last week.

 The change set performance may depend on the included components, especially if they are complex or have many dependencies. The change set may take more time than usual if it includes changes to permission sets and profiles, as these components require additional validation and processing. The change set may not take more time if it includes field type changes, new custom objects and fields, or other simple components.

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.

Deploying unsupported components manually before/after deployment is the best way to address the issue of Metadata API not supporting all the components yet. Metadata API is a powerful tool for deploying changes between orgs, but it does not cover all the metadata types that are available in Salesforce. Some examples of unsupported components are email templates, dashboards, reports, and custom settings. These components need to be deployed manually by using other tools or methods, such as change sets, data loader, or manual configuration.

The usual symptoms of inadequate negative tests are the ones that indicate that the code is not handling the possible errors or exceptions that may occur in different scenarios. For example, when an Apex batch job runs at a scheduled time, an increased number of Apex execution errors occur over all1, this means that the code is not handling the possible concurrency issues, governor limits, or data quality issues that may arise when the job runs. Similarly, when an Apex process runs into an un-handled exception when an HTTP callout has an unexpected status code in the response body1, this means that the code is not handling the possible network issues, authentication issues, or API errors that may occur when making the callout. Another symptom is when developers constantly ask the testers for a screenshot of the error and the exact steps of reproducing the error1, this means that the code is not logging the error details or providing meaningful error messages to the users. Option A is incorrect because turning to the debug log for details of the failed Apex executions is not a symptom of inadequate negative tests, but a normal practice of debugging the code. Option E is incorrect because the delivered user interfaces are not meeting the expectations of the business users is not a symptom of inadequate negative tests, but a symptom of poor user interface design or incomplete requirements.

Load testing is the type of testing that will help UC measure the page response time. Load testing simulates the expected number of concurrent users and measures how the system performs under normal load conditions. Unit testing, system integration testing, and stress testing are not designed to measure the page response time.

The architect should recommend generating mock data that mimics production data shape and volume, and performing data masking on full sandbox after a refresh. These options allow the team to create realistic data sets for testing without violating the regulations that prohibit the use of production data in non-production environments. Requesting a partial sandbox copy after the next Salesforce release is not a valid option, as partial sandboxes are refreshed on demand and not tied to Salesforce releases. Using Query Analyzer in production is not a way to perform data volume testing, as it only analyzes the performance of SOQL queries.

 DOM changes introduced by a release can cause automated browser tests to need updating, as they can affect the way the browser interacts with the web page elements and the selectors used to identify them. New standard fields, metadata schema changes, and new Apex methods are not likely to affect automated browser tests, as they are mostly related to the backend functionality and data model of Salesforce. See [Automated Browser Testing] 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.

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.

 Extracting each permission set, committing and merging to source control, and running through CI checks is the best strategy to bring the issue of failing SOQL statements to the developer’s attention earlier. This way, the developers can review the changes made by the administrators, and ensure that they do not break any existing functionality or security rules. Asking administrators to only make changes to profiles instead would not solve the problem, as profiles can also affect SOQL queries. Creating a sandbox refresh strategy to ensure each sandbox is refreshed every day would not prevent the issue from happening, as the changes made by the administrators would still be propagated to the sandboxes. Advising developers to switch to SOSL queries that are more robust instead would not address the root cause of the issue, which is the lack of visibility and control over the permission sets.

The best approaches for UC to consider are B and C, as they both involve agile methodologies that can accommodate changing requirements and deliver value to the end users in an iterative and collaborative way. Option B is a good approach, as it allows UC to scope and estimate the project, identify the minimum viable product, and co-create the design with the project stakeholders using a product backlog and sprints2. Option C is also a good approach, as it allows UC to gather the remaining requirements and complete the architecture and design, then initiate the build/test processes with frequent reviews by the stakeholders, and perform acceptance testing and validate compliance with regulatory requirements3. Option A is not a good approach, as it involves a waterfall project that is rigid and sequential, and may result in re-work and delays if the requirements change or conflict4. Option D is not a realistic approach, as it assumes that budget and timeline will not be a factor with an agile methodology, which is not true, as agile projects still need to have clear scope, budget, and timeline constraints

B and D are the correct answers, as partner developer edition orgs and developer edition orgs are the appropriate environments for creating a managed package. A managed package is a collection of application components that are locked and versioned, and can be installed and upgraded in multiple orgs. A is incorrect, as developer pro sandbox orgs are not suitable for creating a managed package, as they are copies of a production org that are used for development and testing purposes. C is incorrect, as production orgs with LMA are not suitable for creating a managed package, as they are used for managing the licenses and subscribers of a managed package. You can learn more about this topic in the Package Development Model module on Trailhead.

 Scratch orgs are the best development environments for the package development model, as they allow developers to start a new project, start a new feature branch, or start automated testing in a disposable and configurable org. Scratch orgs also track all the changes automatically and can be easily integrated with version control systems. Scratch orgs can coexist with other models, such as the org development model, but this is not the main reason to start using them. Dev sandboxes are not suitable for the package development model, as they are not within the code deployment path and they do not support source-driven development.

The best strategy to delete the day’s test data in a partial copy sandbox every night is to execute a batch job that deletes all records created on the day. This way, you can automate the process of cleaning up the test data and avoid manual work. Manually deleting all records individually is time-consuming and error-prone. Creating a new developer copy sandbox every night is unnecessary and wasteful, as developer copy sandboxes have limited storage and functionality. Refreshing the sandbox every night is also not feasible, as partial copy sandboxes have a refresh interval of 5 days.

 The best option for UC given the scenario is to opt for a multi-org strategy, where each org can have its own sales process, common rules, and operate in locale. A multi-org strategy can accommodate the different languages, sales processes, and legal requirements of the two business units. A multi-org strategy can also allow for more innovation and flexibility, as each org can customize and optimize its own functionality. A single-org strategy may not be able to support the different languages, sales processes, and legal requirements of the two business units. A single-org strategy may also limit the innovation and flexibility, as the org has to follow a standardized and consistent approach.

A, C, and E are the correct answers, as Force.com Migration Tool, Source Control Tool, and Continuous Integration Build Tool are the tools that should be used to enable a continuous integration process to help manage code quality. A continuous integration process is a practice that involves merging code changes from multiple developers into a common repository, and then testing and validating them automatically, before deploying them to the target environment. Force.com Migration Tool is a tool that uses the Metadata API to retrieve and deploy metadata components, such as code, from one org to another. Source Control Tool is a tool that manages the versions and changes of the code, and allows for collaboration and integration among the developers. Continuous Integration Build Tool is a tool that automates the testing and deployment of the code, and ensures that the code meets the quality and functionality standards. B is incorrect, as Full Sandbox Environment is not a tool that should be used to enable a continuous integration process, as it is a copy of a production org that is used for development and testing purposes, but not for merging, testing, or deploying code changes. D is incorrect, as Project Management Tool is not a tool that should be used to enable a continuous integration process, as it is a tool that helps to plan, organize, and track the progress of the project, but not to manage, test, or deploy code changes. You can learn more about these tools in the Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery module on Trailhead.

 A and C are the characteristics of an effective communication plan, as they enable feedback, collaboration, and transparency among the stakeholders. B is not a characteristic of an effective communication plan, as it does not account for changes in the stakeholder list or their communication preferences. D is not a characteristic of an effective communication plan, as it limits the information sharing and trust among the stakeholders.

 Creating design standards to require help text on all custom fields and custom objects is an option that an Architect should recommend, as it helps to provide context and guidance for the administrators and users on how the fields and objects are used and what they mean. Creating design standards to consistently use the description field on custom fields is also an option that an Architect should recommend, as it helps to document the purpose and function of the fields and make them easier to maintain and understand. Creating design standards to consistently use the description field on custom objects is not an option that an Architect should recommend, as it is not a mandatory field and may not provide enough information for the administrators. Creating design standards with a document to store all custom objects and custom fields is not an option that an Architect should recommend, as it may be difficult to keep the document updated and synchronized with the actual metadata in the org. Creating design standards to require all custom fields on all custom object page layouts is not an option that an Architect should recommend, as it may clutter the user interface and reduce the usability and performance of the application.

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.

This is the correct answer because some components, such as custom settings, user permissions, and email templates, cannot be deployed via the Metadata API. Therefore, these components should be documented and manually deployed or configured in the target environment.

 DevPro1 cannot be cloned because it is on a different version from Production, as it was upgraded to preview for the next Salesforce major release two weeks ago. Therefore, the architect should recommend creating a new DevPro2, and migrating metadata from DevPro1. This way, the second work stream can work on the Service Cloud requirements in a separate sandbox, without affecting the Sales Cloud dev team. Asking the second work stream team to work on the same DevPro1 sandbox would create conflicts and dependencies between the two teams, and would not allow them to release at different times. Pushing back on the requirements because adding another work stream will bring some risks with it would not be a good option, as the business needs might be urgent and important.

 Using a Source Control system alongside a multi-sandbox development strategy has several advantages, such as performing code reviews before promoting to a pre-production sandbox, keeping a history of changes made by each developer, and creating a branching strategy that tracks each feature or change separately. Automatically deploying changes from sandbox to production is not an advantage of Source Control, but rather a function of a Continuous Integration tool. Acting as a backup in case of catastrophic data loss is not an advantage of Source Control, but rather a benefit of having a sandbox strategy.

The best solution to address the problem of user testing taking a long time due to data setup is to include automated sample data during deployment. This way, the users can have realistic and consistent data to test the functionality and performance of the system. Assigning more users to create test data, testing data creation being outside the scope of continuous integration, or training business users to create test data more efficiently are not effective solutions, as they still require manual effort and may result in inconsistent or inaccurate data.

 A is the correct answer, as generating a destructivechanges.xml file and deploying the package via the Force.com Migration Tool is the best way to manage the deletions of metadata components across sandbox environments and production with minimal impact on other work streams. A destructivechanges.xml file is a special file that specifies the components to be deleted from an org, and can be deployed using the Force.com Migration Tool, which is a command-line tool that uses the Metadata API to retrieve and deploy metadata components. This method can help to automate and streamline the deletion process, as well as ensure consistency and accuracy across the environments. B is incorrect, as performing deletes manually in a sandbox and then deploying a change set to production is not a good way to manage the deletions, as it can introduce errors and inconsistencies, as well as require additional steps and permissions. C is incorrect, as assigning business analysts to perform the deletes and splitting up the work between them is not a good way to manage the deletions, as it can create confusion and complexity, as well as lack of coordination and integration. D is incorrect, as deleting the components in production and then refreshing all sandboxes to receive the changes is not a good way to manage the deletions, as it can disrupt the production environment and the ongoing development and testing activities in the sandboxes. You can learn more about this topic in the Deploy Changes with the Force.com Migration Tool unit on Trailhead.

 A single org strategy has the benefits of increased ability to collaborate, centralized data location, and consistent processes across the business. These factors can improve efficiency, data quality, and user adoption. A single org strategy may not allow for tailored implementation or fewer inter-dependencies, as different business units may have different requirements and dependencies.

According to the [Salesforce Performance Testing Guide], performance tests must be run in a sandbox, a business justification must be provided to Salesforce, and performance tests may be run without advanced notice, but Salesforce will not store performance logs. Salesforce does not need to be informed 7 days before starting performance tests, and Salesforce will not monitor test activity to ensure there are no issues with Salesforce Services.

A product owner is responsible for defining the scope and prioritizing the backlog of the project. A product owner can help the COE manage the scope creep between the different projects by aligning the business goals and ensuring the value delivery. A scrum master, a release manager, and a change manager are not directly involved in scope management.

User fields are preserved during metadata deployments and Salesforce attempts to locate a matching user in the target org during deployment. If the username in the source org doesn’t exist in the target org, the deployment will stop until the usernames are resolved or removed.

 B and D are the correct answers, as Force.com IDE and Force.com Migration Tool are the deployment tools that will support the request of creating a new custom object to track Shipping Containers and making it available globally by all Salesforce instances and further maintained and modified regionally by local administrators. Force.com IDE and Force.com Migration Tool are both tools that use the Metadata API to retrieve and deploy metadata components, such as custom objects, from one org to another. They also allow for selective deployment, meaning that only the components that are needed can be deployed, without affecting the rest of the org. A is incorrect, as Tooling API is not a deployment tool, but an API that provides access to metadata and code, as well as customizing and automating the development process. C is incorrect, as Change sets are not a deployment tool that will support the request, as they are limited to deploying components between connected orgs, and do not allow for selective deployment or regional modifications. You can learn more about these tools in the Deploy Changes with the Force.com Migration Tool and Deploy Changes with the Force.com IDE units on Trailhead.

The recommended strategy for deploying a large volume of metadata is to identify metadata dependencies, create logical groupings, and deploy in the right order. This can help avoid errors and ensure a smooth deployment process.

The optimal way to store the service centers as technical reference data is to add them to a custom metadata type. Custom metadata types allow you to create, update, and deploy records that are defined by a custom object. Custom metadata types are similar to list custom settings, but they have some advantages, such as being deployable, queryable, and packageable. Hierarchical custom settings are not suitable for storing multiple records of the same type, and defining a new custom object with a picklist field is unnecessary and inefficient.

A workflow and a trigger are considered minor changes that do not require alignment with a Salesforce major or patch release. However, they still need proper testing, training, and change management before being deployed to production. Therefore, the architect should plan this as a minor release with training and change management.

The best deployment tool for UC to use to manage their deployment process in an automated fashion is the Force.com Migration Tool, as it is a command-line tool that uses the Metadata API to deploy components from one org to another, and can be integrated with version control systems and continuous integration servers. Option A is not a good choice, as Workbench is a web-based tool that does not support automation or scripting. Option C is not a good choice, as Change Sets are a point-and-click tool that require manual steps to create and deploy. Option D is not a good choice, as Force.com IDE is a desktop tool that does not support automation or scripting.

Utilizing Heroku Connect to provide test class data is not a recommended method of creating test data in Salesforce, as it can introduce unnecessary complexity and dependency on an external system. Referencing data from middleware directly within your test class is also not a good practice, as it can make your test class unreliable and dependent on the availability of the middleware. Hosting a mock endpoint to produce sample information from an endpoint and loading a CSV as a static resource and referencing it in a test class are both valid methods of creating test data in Salesforce, as they allow you to isolate your test class from external factors and ensure consistent results. See Create Test Data for Apex Tests for more details.

 This is the correct answer because it is a risk to have a fixed release date and budget, but unknown and changing requirements. This may lead to unrealistic expectations, scope creep, and poor quality of the application. The requirements should be solicited by an external community if they are the end users or stakeholders of the application. The project can use either the waterfall or agile methodology, depending on the nature and complexity of the project, but the methodology should be aligned with the requirements and the release date.

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.

The most important factor to consider before recommending Performance testing is the number of concurrent transactions, as this will affect the response time and throughput of the system. Option A is not relevant, as unit tests are used to verify the functionality and quality of the code, not the performance. Option B is not related, as Apex Hammer failures are used to check the compatibility of the code with new platform releases, not the performance. Option C is not helpful, as debug log entries are used to troubleshoot errors and issues, not the performance.

 Using a Change Set or manually replicating the changes in the developer sandbox are both valid approaches to ensure that changes made in production are reflected in the sandbox that the developers are working on. Refreshing the developer sandbox would overwrite any changes made by the developers, and Salesforce-to-Salesforce is not a deployment tool.

 The best way to address the issue of hitting governor limits while testing Apex classes is to use test.startTest() and test.stopTest() methods to reset governor limits. These methods mark the start and end of the test code, and allow you to run your test code with a separate set of governor limits. There is no AppExchange product that can temporarily increase the governor limits, and there is no auto reset property or test.setLimit() and test.resetLimit() methods that can reset governor limits.

3020

A virtual Kanban board tool is a good way to increase transparency and collaboration among agile development teams, as it allows them to visualize their work, track their progress, and identify any bottlenecks or issues. A daily stand-up meeting, a daily email, or a shared spreadsheet are not as effective or efficient as a Kanban board tool.

Two software development methodologies that an architect should suggest to solve the issue of visibility are Scrum and Kanban. Scrum is based on the value of openness, which means that the team members and stakeholders share information and feedback regularly and transparently. Kanban is based on the principle of making everything visible, which means that the team uses a visual board to track the progress and status of the work items. Waterfall is not a good methodology for visibility, as it does not allow for frequent communication and feedback. DevOps is not a methodology, but a culture and practice that aims to improve collaboration and delivery across the software development lifecycle.

The architect should recommend that UC start a citizen development program to minimize additional costs and allow UC to accomplish more from the backlog. A citizen development program is a way of empowering non-technical users to create and deploy simple applications using low-code or no-code tools, such as Salesforce Platform. This can help UC leverage the skills and knowledge of their existing workforce, reduce the workload of the development team, and deliver value faster to the business.

 Testers will experience functional changes throughout testing due to not having isolation from development. Using a single developer sandbox for both development and testing is not a good practice, as it does not provide a stable and consistent environment for testing. The developers may make changes to the code or configuration that affect the functionality or behavior of the application, which may cause the testers to encounter unexpected results or errors.

 Three advantages of using the SFDX are: can store code on a local machine, or a version control system; can create scratch orgs; and can install application metadata from a central repository. These advantages can help improve the development experience, as they allow developers to work with source-driven development, use ephemeral and configurable environments, and access metadata components from a shared location. Can quickly deploy metadata using Execute Anonymous is not an advantage of using the SFDX, as Execute Anonymous is a feature of the Developer Console that allows running Apex code, not deploying metadata. Can use native Deployment Rollback Tool to quickly revert to prior state is also not an advantage of using the SFDX, as there is no such tool in the SFDX. See [Salesforce DX] for more details.