Free Practice Questions for Salesforce Development-Lifecycle-and-Deployment-Architect Exam

A change to a multi-org strategy can be justified by two reasons: launching a new line of business with independent processes and acquiring a company that has its own Salesforce org and operates in a different business with its own set of regulatory requirements. These reasons indicate that the single-org strategy is no longer feasible or optimal, as it would require too much customization, complexity, and compliance. Using Chatter for collaboration among different business units is not a reason to change to a multi-org strategy, as Chatter can work across multiple orgs. Following a unification enterprise architecture operating model is also not a reason to change to a multi-org strategy, as this model implies having orgs with the same processes implemented for each business unit, which is more suitable for a single-org strategy.

The partner can use Developer Edition or Partner Developer Edition for development of the managed package. These environments allow the creation of a namespace and the packaging of components into a managed package. Developer sandbox and Developer Pro sandbox do not support these features and are not suitable for developing a managed package.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 The best way to leverage the Metadata API to communicate the metadata components to the release management team is to use unlocked packages. Unlocked packages are a collection of metadata components that can be easily deployed and updated using the Metadata API. They also provide versioning and dependency tracking features that can help ensure the integrity and compatibility of the components. Providing a spreadsheet, a change set, or an audit trail are not effective ways to use the Metadata API, as they do not capture the full metadata information and require manual intervention.

Change sets provide an easy way to deploy related components, as they allow the user to select the components from a list and add them to the change set. They also provide a simple and declarative method for deployment, as they do not require any coding or scripting. Change sets do not provide the ability to deploy a very large number of components easily, as they have a limit of 10,000 components per change set. They also do not provide the ability to track changes to components, as they do not have any version control or history features.

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 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.