Free Practice Questions for Workday Workday-Pro-Integrations Exam

Understanding ISUs and Integration Systems in Workday

Integration System User (ISU):An ISU is a specialized user account in Workday designed for integrations, functioning as a service account to authenticate and execute integration processes. ISUs are created using the "Create Integration System User" task and are typically configured with settings like disabling UI sessions and setting long session timeouts (e.g., 0 minutes) to prevent expiration during automated processes. ISUs are not human users but are instead programmatic accounts used for API calls, EIBs, Core Connectors, or other integration mechanisms.

Integration Systems:In Workday, an "integration system" refers to the configuration or setup of an integration, such as an External Integration Business (EIB), Core Connector, or custom integration via web services. Integration systems are defined to handle data exchange between Workday and external systems, and they require authentication, often via an ISU, to execute tasks like data retrieval, transformation, or posting.

Assigning ISUs to Integration Systems:ISUs are used to authenticate and authorize integration systems to interact with Workday. When configuring an integration system, you assign an ISU to provide the credentials needed for the integration to run. This assignment ensures that theintegration can access Workday data and functionalities based on the security permissions granted to the ISU via its associated Integration System Security Group (ISSG).

Limitation on Assignment:Workday’s security model imposes restrictions to maintain control and auditability. Specifically, an ISU is designed to be tied to a single integration system to ensure clear accountability, prevent conflicts, and simplify security management. This limitation prevents an ISU from being reused across multiple unrelated integration systems, reducing the risk of unintended access or data leakage.

Evaluating Each Option

Let’s assess each option based on Workday’s integration and security practices:

Option A: An ISU can be assigned to five integration systems.

Analysis:This is incorrect. Workday does not impose a specific numerical limit like "five" for ISU assignments to integration systems. Instead, the limitation is more restrictive: an ISU is typically assigned to only one integration system to ensure focused security and accountability. Allowing an ISU to serve multiple systems could lead to confusion, overlapping permissions, or security risks, which Workday’s design avoids.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:There’s no documentation or standard practice in Workday Pro Integrations suggesting a limit of five integration systems per ISU. This option is arbitrary and inconsistent with Workday’s security model.

Option B: An ISU can be assigned to an unlimited number of integration systems.

Analysis:This is incorrect. Workday’s security best practices do not allow an ISU to be assigned to an unlimited number of integration systems. Allowing this would create security vulnerabilities, as an ISU’s permissions (via its ISSG) could be applied across multiple unrelated systems, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data conflicts. Workday enforces a one-to-one or tightly controlled relationship to maintain auditability and security.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:The principle of least privilege and clear accountability in Workday integrations requires limiting an ISU’s scope, not allowing unlimited assignments.

Option C: An ISU can be assigned to only one integration system.

Analysis:This is correct. In Workday, an ISU is typically assigned to a single integration system to ensure that its credentials and permissions are tightly scoped. This aligns with Workday’s security model, where ISUs are created for specific integration purposes (e.g., an EIB, Core Connector, or web service integration). When configuring an integration system, you specify the ISU in the integration setup (e.g., under "Integration System Attributes" or "Authentication" settings), and it is not reused across multiple systems to prevent conflicts or unintended access. This limitation ensures traceability and security, as the ISU’s actions can be audited within the context of that single integration.

Why It Fits:Workday documentation and best practices, including training materials and community forums, emphasize that ISUs are dedicated to specific integrations. For example, when creating an EIB or Core Connector, you assign an ISU, and it is not shared across other integrations unless explicitly reconfigured, which is rare and discouraged for security reasons.

Option D: An ISU can only be assigned to an ISSG and not an integration system.

Analysis:This is incorrect. While ISUs are indeed assigned to ISSGs to inherit security permissions (as established in Question 26), they are also assigned to integration systems to provide authentication and authorization for executing integration tasks. The ISU’s role includes both: it belongs to an ISSG for permissions and is linked to an integration system for execution. Saying it can only be assigned to an ISSG and not an integration system misrepresents Workday’s design, as ISUs are explicitly configured in integration systems (e.g., EIB, Core Connector) to run processes.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:ISUs are integral to integration systems, providing credentials for API calls or data exchange. Excluding assignment to integration systems contradicts Workday’s integration framework.

Final Verification

The correct answer is Option C, as Workday limits an ISU to a single integration system to ensure security, accountability, and clarity in integration operations. This aligns with the principle of least privilege, where ISUs are scoped narrowly to avoid overexposure. For example, when setting up a Core Connector: Job Postings (as in Question 25), you assign an ISU specifically for that integration, not multiple ones, unless reconfiguring for a different purpose, which is atypical.

Supporting Documentation

The reasoning is based on Workday Pro Integrations security practices, including:

Workday Community documentation on creating and managing ISUs and integration systems.

Tutorials on configuring EIBs, Core Connectors, and web services, which show assigning ISUs to specific integrations (e.g.,Workday Advanced Studio Tutorial).

Integration security overviews from implementation partners (e.g., NetIQ, Microsoft Learn, Reco.ai) emphasizing one ISU per integration for security.

Community discussions on Reddit and Workday forums reinforcing that ISUs are tied to single integrations for auditability (r/workday on Reddit).

This question focuses on the purpose of granting an Integration System User (ISU) modify access to the Integration Event domain via an Integration System Security Group (ISSG) in Workday Pro Integrations. Let’s analyze the role of the ISU, the Integration Event domain, and evaluate each option to determine the correct answer.

Understanding ISUs, ISSGs, and the Integration Event Domain

Integration System User (ISU):As described in previous questions, an ISU is a service account for integrations, used to authenticate and execute integration processes in Workday. ISUs are assigned to ISSGs to inherit security permissions and are linked to specific integration systems (e.g., EIBs, Core Connectors) for execution.

Integration System Security Group (ISSG):An ISSG is a security group that defines the permissions for ISUs, controlling what data and functionalities they can access or modify. ISSGs can be unconstrained (access all instances) or constrained (access specific instances based on context). Permissions are granted via domain security policies, such as "Get," "Put," "View," or "Modify," applied to Workday domains.

Integration Event Domain:In Workday, the Integration Event domain (or Integration Events security domain) governs access to integration-related activities, such as managing integration events, schedules, attributes, mappings, and logs. This domain is critical for integrations, as it controls the ability to create, modify, or view integration configurations and runtime events.

"Modify" access to the Integration Event domain allows the ISU to make changes to integration configurations, such as attributes (e.g., file names, endpoints), mappings (e.g., data transformations), and event settings (e.g., schedules or triggers).

This domain does not typically grant UI access or ownership of schedules but focuses on configuration and runtime control.

Purpose of Granting Modify Access:Granting an ISU modify access to the Integration Event domain via an ISSG enables the ISU to perform configuration tasks for integrations, ensuring the integration system can adapt or update its settings programmatically. This is essential for automated integrations that need to adjust mappings, attributes, or event triggers without manual intervention. However, ISUs are not designed for UI interaction or administrative ownership, as they are service accounts.

Evaluating Each Option

Let’s assess each option based on Workday’s security and integration model:

Option A: To have the ISU own the integration schedule.

Analysis:This is incorrect. ISUs do not "own" integration schedules or any other integration components. Ownership is not a concept applicable to ISUs, which are service accounts for execution, not administrative entities. Integration schedules are configured within the integration system (e.g., EIB or Core Connector) and managed by administrators or users with appropriate security roles, not by ISUs. Modify access to the Integration Event domain allows changes to schedules, but it doesn’t imply ownership.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:ISUs lack administrative control or ownership; they execute based on permissions, not manage schedules as owners. This misinterprets the ISU’s role.

Option B: To let the ISU configure integration attributes and maps.

Analysis:This is correct. Granting modify access to the Integration Event domain allows the ISU to alter integration configurations, including attributes (e.g., file names, endpoints, timeouts) and mappings (e.g., data transformations like worker subtype mappings from Question 25). The Integration Event domain governs these configuration elements, and "Modify" permission enables the ISU to update them programmatically during integration execution. This is a standard use case for ISUs in automated integrations, ensuring flexibility without manual intervention.

Why It Fits:Workday’s documentation and training materials indicate that the Integration Event domain controls integration configuration tasks. For example, in an EIB or Core Connector, an ISU with modify access can adjust mappings or attributes, as seen in tutorials on integration setup (Workday Advanced Studio Tutorial). This aligns with the ISU’s role as a service account for dynamic configuration.

Option C: To log into the user interface as the ISU and launch the integration.

Analysis:This is incorrect. ISUs are not intended for UI interaction. When creating an ISU, a best practice is to disable UI sessions (e.g., set "Allow UI Sessions" to "No") and configure a session timeout of 0 minutes to prevent expiration during automation. ISUs operate programmaticallyvia APIs or integration systems, not through the Workday UI. Modify access to the Integration Event domain enables configuration changes, not UI login or manual launching.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:Logging into the UI contradicts ISU design, as they are service accounts, not user accounts. This option misrepresents their purpose.

Option D: To build the integration system as the ISU.

Analysis:This is incorrect. ISUs do not "build" integration systems; they execute or configure existing integrations based on permissions. Building an integration system (e.g., creating EIBs, Core Connectors, or web services) is an administrative task performed by users with appropriate security roles (e.g., Integration Build domain access), not ISUs. Modify access to the Integration Event domain allows configuration changes, not the creation or design of integration systems.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:ISUs lack the authority or capability to build integrations; they are for runtime execution and configuration, not development or design.

Final Verification

The correct answer is Option B, as granting an ISU modify access to the Integration Event domain via an ISSG enables it to configure integration attributes (e.g., file names, endpoints) and maps (e.g., data transformations), which are critical for dynamic integration operations. This aligns with Workday’s security model, where ISUs handle automated tasks within defined permissions, not UI interaction, ownership, or system building.

For example, in the Core Connector: Job Postings from Question 25, an ISU with modify access to Integration Event could update the filename pattern or worker subtype mappings, ensuring the integration adapts to vendor requirements without manual intervention. This is consistent with Workday’s design for integration automation.

Supporting Documentation

The reasoning is based on Workday Pro Integrations security practices, including:

Workday Community documentation on ISUs, ISSGs, and domain security (e.g., Integration Event domain permissions).

Tutorials on configuring EIBs and Core Connectors, showing ISUs modifying attributes and mappings (Workday Advanced Studio Tutorial).

Integration security overviews from implementation partners (e.g., NetIQ, Microsoft Learn, Reco.ai) detailing domain access for ISUs.

Community discussions on Reddit and Workday forums reinforcing ISU roles for configuration, not UI or ownership (r/workday on Reddit).

In the Workday Pro Integrations program, the process of uploading an XSLT file for a brand-new Document Transformation system follows a specific workflow designed to ensure the transformation logic is properly attached and configured within the integration system. The correct sequence involves first creating the XSLT Attachment Transformation and then configuring the Integration Attachment Service to utilize it. Here's a step-by-step breakdown based on Workday's integration methodology:

Create XSLT Attachment Transformation:

The initial step is to create an XSLT Attachment Transformation object within Workday. This involves uploading the XSLT file, which contains the transformation logic needed to convert XML data into the desired format for the Document Transformation system. In Workday, XSLT (Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations) is used to define how data from a source (typically in XML format) is transformed into an output format compatible with an external system.

To do this, you navigate to the Integration System, access the related actions, and select the option to create a new "XSLT Attachment Transformation." You then name the transformation, upload the XSLT file (with a size limit of 30 MB as per Workday specifications), and save it. This step establishes the transformation logic as an object that can be referenced by the integration system.

Configure Integration Attachment Service:

Once the XSLT Attachment Transformation is created, the next step is to configure the Integration Attachment Service to incorporate this transformation. The Integration Attachment Service is a component of the Document Transformation system that handles the delivery or processing of the transformed data.

In this step, you edit the integration system, navigate to the "Services" tab, and configure the Integration Attachment Service. Here, you specify the previously created XSLT Attachment Transformation as the transformation to be applied. This links the XSLT logic to the integration workflow, ensuring that the data processed by the Document Transformation system is transformed according to the uploaded XSLT file.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. Configure XSLT Attachment Transformation, then Create Integration Attachment Service: This is incorrect because you cannot "configure" an XSLT Attachment Transformation before it exists. It must first be created as an object in Workday before any configuration or association with services can occur.

C. Create Integration Attachment Service, then Configure Integration Attachment Service: This option skips the creation of the XSLT Attachment Transformation entirely, which is a critical step. Without the transformation defined, configuring the service alone would not enable the XSLT upload or its functionality.

D. Configure Integration Attachment Service, then Create Integration Service Attachment: This sequence is reversed and misleading. The Integration Attachment Service must be configured to use an existing XSLT Attachment Transformation, not the other way around. Additionally, "Create Integration Service Attachment" is not a standard term in this context within Workday documentation.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References:

Workday Integration System Fundamentals: This section outlines the components of an integration system, including the use of XSLT for document transformation and the role of attachment services.

Document Transformation Module: Specifically details the process of uploading and applying XSLT files, emphasizing the creation of an XSLT Attachment Transformation followed by its configuration within the integration services.

Core Connectors and Document Transformation Course Manual: Provides practical steps for setting up transformations, including the sequence of creating and then configuring transformation attachments (e.g., Activities related to "Upload a Custom XSLT Transformation" and "Edit XSLT Attachment Transformation").

Workday Community Documentation: Confirms that XSLT files are uploaded as attachment transformations and then linked to services like the Integration Attachment Service for processing.

This question examines the limitations on assigning Integration System Users (ISUs) to integration systems in Workday Pro Integrations. Let’s analyze the relationship and evaluate each option to determine the correct answer.

Understanding ISUs and Integration Systems in Workday

Integration System User (ISU):An ISU is a specialized user account in Workday designed for integrations, functioning as a service account to authenticate and execute integration processes. ISUs are created using the "Create Integration System User" task and are typically configured with settings like disabling UI sessions and setting long session timeouts (e.g., 0 minutes) toprevent expiration during automated processes. ISUs are not human users but are instead programmatic accounts used for API calls, EIBs, Core Connectors, or other integration mechanisms.

Integration Systems:In Workday, an "integration system" refers to the configuration or setup of an integration, such as an External Integration Business (EIB), Core Connector, or custom integration via web services. Integration systems are defined to handle data exchange between Workday and external systems, and they require authentication, often via an ISU, to execute tasks like data retrieval, transformation, or posting.

Assigning ISUs to Integration Systems:ISUs are used to authenticate and authorize integration systems to interact with Workday. When configuring an integration system, you assign an ISU to provide the credentials needed for the integration to run. This assignment ensures that the integration can access Workday data and functionalities based on the security permissions granted to the ISU via its associated Integration System Security Group (ISSG).

Limitation on Assignment:Workday’s security model imposes restrictions to maintain control and auditability. Specifically, an ISU is designed to be tied to a single integration system to ensure clear accountability, prevent conflicts, and simplify security management. This limitation prevents an ISU from being reused across multiple unrelated integration systems, reducing the risk of unintended access or data leakage.

Evaluating Each Option

Let’s assess each option based on Workday’s integration and security practices:

Option A: An ISU can be assigned to five integration systems.

Analysis:This is incorrect. Workday does not impose a specific numerical limit like "five" for ISU assignments to integration systems. Instead, the limitation is more restrictive: an ISU is typically assigned to only one integration system to ensure focused security and accountability. Allowing an ISU to serve multiple systems could lead to confusion, overlapping permissions, or security risks, which Workday’s design avoids.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:There’s no documentation or standard practice in Workday Pro Integrations suggesting a limit of five integration systems per ISU. This option is arbitrary and inconsistent with Workday’s security model.

Option B: An ISU can be assigned to an unlimited number of integration systems.

Analysis:This is incorrect. Workday’s security best practices do not allow an ISU to be assigned to an unlimited number of integration systems. Allowing this would create security vulnerabilities, as an ISU’s permissions (via its ISSG) could be applied across multiple unrelated systems, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data conflicts. Workday enforces a one-to-one or tightly controlled relationship to maintain auditability and security.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:The principle of least privilege and clear accountability in Workday integrations requires limiting an ISU’s scope, not allowing unlimited assignments.

Option C: An ISU can be assigned to only one integration system.

Analysis:This is correct. In Workday, an ISU is typically assigned to a single integration system to ensure that its credentials and permissions are tightly scoped. This aligns with Workday’s security model, where ISUs are created for specific integration purposes (e.g., an EIB, Core Connector, or web service integration). When configuring an integration system, you specify the ISU in the integration setup (e.g., under "Integration System Attributes" or "Authentication" settings), and it is not reused across multiple systems to prevent conflicts or unintended access. This limitation ensures traceability and security, as the ISU’s actions can be audited within the context of that single integration.

Why It Fits:Workday documentation and best practices, including training materials and community forums, emphasize that ISUs are dedicated to specific integrations. For example, when creating an EIB or Core Connector, you assign an ISU, and it is not shared across other integrations unless explicitly reconfigured, which is rare and discouraged for security reasons.

Option D: An ISU can only be assigned to an ISSG and not an integration system.

Analysis:This is incorrect. While ISUs are indeed assigned to ISSGs to inherit security permissions (as established in Question 26), they are also assigned to integration systems toprovide authentication and authorization for executing integration tasks. The ISU’s role includes both: it belongs to an ISSG for permissions and is linked to an integration system for execution. Saying it can only be assigned to an ISSG and not an integration system misrepresents Workday’s design, as ISUs are explicitly configured in integration systems (e.g., EIB, Core Connector) to run processes.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:ISUs are integral to integration systems, providing credentials for API calls or data exchange. Excluding assignment to integration systems contradicts Workday’s integration framework.

Final Verification

The correct answer is Option C, as Workday limits an ISU to a single integration system to ensure security, accountability, and clarity in integration operations. This aligns with the principle of least privilege, where ISUs are scoped narrowly to avoid overexposure. For example, when setting up a Core Connector: Job Postings (as in Question 25), you assign an ISU specifically for that integration, not multiple ones, unless reconfiguring for a different purpose, which is atypical.

Supporting Documentation

The reasoning is based on Workday Pro Integrations security practices, including:

Workday Community documentation on creating and managing ISUs and integration systems.

Tutorials on configuring EIBs, Core Connectors, and web services, which show assigning ISUs to specific integrations (e.g.,Workday Advanced Studio Tutorial).

Integration security overviews from implementation partners (e.g., NetIQ, Microsoft Learn, Reco.ai) emphasizing one ISU per integration for security.

Community discussions on Reddit and Workday forums reinforcing that ISUs are tied to single integrations for auditability (r/workday on Reddit).

In Workday reporting, selecting the appropriatePrimary Business Object (PBO)andRelated Business Objects (RBOs)is critical to ensure that the report retrieves and organizes data correctly based on the requirements. The requirement here is to create a report that outputs one row per worker for a specified supervisory organization, including their active benefit plans and the names and ages of all related dependents. The Worker business object contains fields like Employee, Benefit Plans, and Dependents, while the Dependent business object provides the Name and Age fields for dependents.

Why Worker as the PBO?The report needs to output "one row per worker," making the Worker business object the natural choice for the PBO. In Workday, the PBO defines the primary dataset and determines the granularity of the report (i.e., one row per instance of the PBO). Since the report revolves around workers and their associated data (benefit plans and dependents), Worker is the starting point. Additionally, the requirement specifies a supervisory organization at runtime, which is a filter applied to the Worker business object to limit the population.

Why Dependent as an RBO?The Worker business object includes a "Dependents" field, which is a multi-instance field linking to the Dependent business object. To access detailed dependent data (Name and Age), the Dependent business object must be added as an RBO. This allows the report to pull in the related dependent information for each worker. Without the Dependent RBO, the report could only reference the existence of dependents, not their specific attributes like Name and Age.

Analysis of Benefit Plans:The Worker business object already contains the "Benefit Plans" field, which provides access to active benefit plan data. Since this is a field directly available on the PBO (Worker), no additional RBO is needed to retrieve benefit plan information.

Option Analysis:

A. PBO: Dependent, RBO: Worker: Incorrect. If Dependent were the PBO, the report would output one row per dependent, not one row per worker, which contradicts the requirement. Additionally, Worker as an RBO would unnecessarily complicate accessing worker-level data.

B. PBO: Worker, RBO: Dependent: Correct. This aligns with the requirement: Worker as the PBO ensures one row per worker, and Dependent as the RBO provides access to dependent details (Name and Age). Benefit Plans are already accessible via the Worker PBO.

C. PBO: Dependent, no RBOs: Incorrect.This would result in one row per dependent and would not allow easy access to worker or benefit plan data, failing to meet the "one row per worker" requirement.

D. PBO: Worker, no RBOs: Incorrect. While Worker as the PBO is appropriate, omitting the Dependent RBO prevents the report from retrieving dependent Name and Age fields, which are stored in the Dependent business object, not directly on Worker.

Implementation:

Create a custom report withWorkeras the PBO.

Add a filter for the supervisory organization (specified at runtime) on the Worker PBO.

AddDependentas an RBO to access Name and Age fields.

Include columns from Worker (e.g., Employee, Benefit Plans) and Dependent (e.g., Name, Age).

References from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide:

Workday Report Writer Fundamentals: Section on "Selecting Primary and Related Business Objects" explains how the PBO determines the report’s row structure and RBOs extend data access to related objects.

Integration System Fundamentals: Discusses how multi-instance fields (e.g., Dependents on Worker) require RBOs to retrieve detailed attributes.

As an integration developer working with Workday, you are tasked with transforming the output of an Enterprise Interface Builder (EIB) that calls the Get_Job_Profiles web service operation. The provided XML shows the response from this operation, and you need to write XSLT to select the value of the element. The root template of your XSLT matches on and applies a template to . Within this template, you use the element to extract the value. Let’s analyze the XML structure, the requirement, and each option to determine the correct XPath syntax.

Understanding the XML and Requirement

The XML snippet provided is a SOAP response from the Get_Job_Profiles web service operation in Workday, using the namespace xmlns:wd="urn:com.workday/bsvc" and version wd:version="v43.0". Key elements relevant to the question include:

The root element is .

It contains , which includes elements.

Within , there are:

, which contains elements (e.g., a Job_Profile_ID).

, which contains with the value Senior_Benefits_Analyst.

The task is to select the value of (e.g., "Senior_Benefits_Analyst") using XPath within an XSLT template that matches . The element outputs the value of the selected node, so you need the correct XPath path from the context to .

Analysis of Options

Let’s evaluate each option based on the XML structure and XPath syntax rules:

Option A: wd:Job_Profile/wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code

This XPath starts from wd:Job_Profile and navigates to wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code. However, in the XML, is the parent element, and is a direct child containing . The path wd:Job_Profile/wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code is technically correct in terms of structure, as it follows the hierarchy:

→ → .

However, since the template matches , the context node is already . You don’t need to include wd:Job_Profile/ at the beginning of the XPath unless navigating from a higher level. Starting directly with wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code (Option C) is more concise and appropriate for the context. This option is technically valid but redundant and less efficient, making it less preferred compared to Option C.

Option B: wd:Job_Profile_Data[@wd:Job_Code]

This XPath uses an attribute selector ([@wd:Job_Code]) to filter based on an attribute named wd:Job_Code. However, examining the XML, does not have a wd:Job_Code attribute—it has a child element with the value "Senior_Benefits_Analyst." The [@attribute] syntax is used for attributes, not child elements, so this XPath is incorrect. It would not select the value and would likely return no results or an error. This option is invalid.

Option C: wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code

This XPath starts from wd:Job_Profile_Data (a direct child of ) and navigates to wd:Job_Code. Since the template matches , the contextnode is , and wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code correctly points to the element within . This path is:

Concise and appropriate for the context.

Directly selects the value "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" when used with .

Matches the XML structure, as contains as a child.

This is the most straightforward and correct option for selecting the value within the template.

Option D: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']

This XPath navigates to (a child of ) and then to with an attribute wd:type="Job_Profile_ID". In the XML, contains:

1740d3eca2f2ed9b6174ca7d2ae88c8c

Senior_Benefits_Analyst

The XPath wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] selects the element with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID", which has the value "Senior_Benefits_Analyst." However, this is not the value—the is a separate element under , not . The question specifically asks for the value, so this option is incorrect, as it selects a different piece of data (the job profile ID, not the job code).

Why Option C is Correct

Option C, wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code, is the correct XPath syntax because:

It starts from the context node (as the template matches this element) and navigates to , which directly selects the element’s value ("Senior_Benefits_Analyst").

It is concise and aligns with standard XPath navigation in XSLT, avoiding unnecessary redundancy (unlike Option A) or incorrect attribute selectors (unlike Option B).

It matches the XML structure, where is a child of and contains as a child.

When used with in the template, it outputs the job code value, fulfilling the requirement.

Practical Example in XSLT

Here’s how this might look in your XSLT:

xml

WrapCopy

This would output "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" for the element in the XML.

Verification with Workday Documentation

The Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide and SOAP API Reference (available via Workday Community) detail the structure of the Get_Job_Profiles response and how to use XPath in XSLT for transformations. The XML structure shows as the container for job profile details, including . The guide emphasizes using relative XPath paths within templates to navigate from the matched element (e.g., ) to child elements like .

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References

Section: XSLT Transformations in EIBs– Describes using XSLT to transform web service responses, including selecting elements with XPath.

Section: Workday Web Services– Details the Get_Job_Profiles operation and its XML output structure, including and .

Section: XPath Syntax– Explains how to navigate XML hierarchies in Workday XSLT, using relative paths like wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code from a context.

Workday Community SOAP API Reference – Provides examples of XPath navigation for Workday web service responses.

Option C is the verified answer, as it correctly selects the value using the appropriate XPath syntax within the template context.