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

A Port management tool is a tool that can support a project involving a large distributed development and testing team, by providing features such as requirements management, defect tracking, collaboration, and reporting. A Port management tool can also integrate with other tools, such as code repositories, testing tools, and deployment tools, to provide a comprehensive view of the project status and progress. A Spreadsheet is not a suitable tool for managing requirements and defects, as it is prone to errors, duplication, and inconsistency. A Code Repository is a tool that stores and manages the source code of the system, but does not manage requirements and defects. Wave is a tool that provides analytics and insights on data, but does not manage requirements and defects.

The problem is that UAT is on a preview release and SIT is not. A preview release is a version of Salesforce that contains the features and enhancements that will be available in the next major release. Preview releases are usually available a few weeks before the official release date, and they are assigned to a subset of instances. If UAT and SIT are on different instances, they may have different release versions, which can cause deployment issues. For example, if UAT has a preview release that contains some new metadata types that are not available in SIT, then deploying those metadata types from SIT to UAT will fail. To avoid this problem, the architect should check the Sandbox Preview Guide1 and the Release Notes2 to see if there are any changes that affect the deployment, and refresh and redeploy the sandboxes accordingly. There is a problem, and it is not expected behavior. Using the DX command line instead will not solve the problem, as it will still encounter the same version mismatch. SIT is not on a preview release and UAT is not, as that would not cause any deployment issues.

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.

 An application with many systems and inter-dependencies between components is a project situation that favors a waterfall methodology, as it requires a high level of planning and design upfront to ensure the integration and compatibility of the components. An application with regulatory compliance requirements to be validated by outside agencies is also a project situation that favors a waterfall methodology, as it requires a clear and detailed documentation of the requirements and specifications, as well as a formal and rigorous testing and validation process. An application in post-production, with incremental changes made by a small team is a project situation that favors an agile methodology, as it allows for faster and more frequent delivery of changes, as well as more flexibility and collaboration. An in-house application with a fixed team size, but an open timeline and flexible requirements is also a project situation that favors an agile methodology, as it allows for more creativity and experimentation, as well as more feedback and adaptation.

The three benefits of using a partner development org over an individual development org in this scenario are:

Partner development org has a greater number of licenses available for the team. This means that the developers can test their app with different user profiles and permissions, and also invite beta testers to provide feedback2.

Partner development org offers higher API limit. This means that the developers can use more API calls to integrate their app with external systems or services, and also leverage the Salesforce APIs to automate their development and deployment processes2.

Partner development org offers more storage. This means that the developers can store more data and files in their org, and also use more features and components that require storage, such as Big Objects, Platform Events, or Lightning Web Components2.

The other options are not benefits of using a partner development org over an individual development org in this scenario, because:

Only partner development org supports managed beta testing. This is not true, as both partner development org and individual development org can create and distribute managed beta packages3.

Partner development org never expires. This is also not true, as partner development orgs have a 12-month expiration period, which can be extended by request

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.

A full sandbox would be appropriate for diagnosing reports of poor performance when accessing certain Visualforce pages, as it provides a complete copy of the production data and metadata, which allows the developers to replicate and troubleshoot the issue in a realistic environment. A partial copy sandbox would not be appropriate, as it only provides a sample of the production data, which may not reflect the actual volume and complexity of the data that affects the performance. A developer sandbox would not be appropriate, as it only provides a copy of the production metadata, but not the data, which makes it impossible to test the performance of the Visualforce pages with real data. A developer pro sandbox would not be appropriate, as it also only provides a copy of the production metadata, but not the data, which makes it impossible to test the performance of the Visualforce pages with real data.

The evidence that can support the CTO’s claims is a burndown chart showing the team misses their forecast sprint after sprint. This indicates that the team is overcommitting and not able to deliver the work they planned. The definition of done, the Kanban board, and the burndown chart showing the team finishes early are not relevant to the CTO’s claims, as they do not reflect the actual progress and performance of the team.

 To address the bug in production, the architect should recommend the following approaches: Investigate potential data impacts, fix the bug in a hotfix branch, and seek stakeholder approval for the hotfix. Investigating the data impacts can help assess the severity and scope of the bug, and determine the best course of action to mitigate any data loss or corruption. Fixing the bug in a hotfix branch can help isolate the change and avoid introducing any other changes from the current sprint. Seeking stakeholder approval for the hotfix can help ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements and governance policies.

 The best release strategy for creating a new report to support an urgent client request is to utilize the daily release process. The daily release process is designed for small and quick changes that do not require extensive testing or approval. The daily release process can create the report directly in a full sandbox and then deploy it to production. The major and minor release processes are more suitable for large and complex changes that require more testing and approval. The major and minor release processes should not create the report directly in production, as this may cause errors or conflicts.