Development-Lifecycle-and-Deployment-Architect Salesforce Certified Development Lifecycle and Deployment Architect (WI24) Questions and Answers

 Implementing a pull request and secure code review will contribute to an improvement of code security by ensuring that the code is checked and approved by another developer before merging to the main branch. Integrating a static code security analysis tool in the CI/CD process will contribute to an improvement of code security by automatically scanning the code for vulnerabilities and enforcing security standards. Hiring a company specialized in secure code review or using two developers to review and fix current code vulnerabilities are not actions that will improve code security, but rather remediate existing security issues.

The creation and execution of Release Management processes are the responsibility of the Dev/Build Team and the Center of Excellence. The Dev/Build Team is in charge of developing, testing, and deploying the changes to the system, while the Center of Excellence is in charge of defining and managing the best practices, standards, and governance for the system. The Steering Committee is a group of senior stakeholders that provides strategic direction and oversight for the project, but does not create or execute the Release Management processes. The End Users are the people who use the system, but do not create or execute the Release Management processes.

Testing load considering 50% more call volume is a reasonable test load consideration, as it can simulate the expected future growth and ensure that the application can handle the increased demand without compromising the performance or functionality.

 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 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.

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.

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.

Multiple triggers on the same object can cause conflicts and performance issues. Multiple unit test failures can indicate poor code quality and lack of maintenance. Duplicated logic across Visualforce pages and Apex classes can lead to inconsistency and redundancy.

 To support application lifecycle methodology, you need tools that can help you manage the source code, automate the deployment process, and track the issues and bugs. A version control repository is a tool that allows you to store, track, and collaborate on the source code of your application. A continuous integration tool is a tool that allows you to automate the deployment of your code to different environments, as well as run tests and validations. An issue tracking tool is a tool that allows you to record, monitor, and resolve the issues and bugs that arise during the development and testing phases. A database management system is a tool that allows you to store, manipulate, and query data, but it is not directly related to application lifecycle methodology. A middleware is a software layer that facilitates communication and data exchange between different applications, but it is not directly related to application lifecycle methodology either.

Manually validating change sets before deployment is a recommended practice to avoid possible delays while deploying a change set, as it can help you identify and resolve any errors or dependencies before the actual deployment. Change set performance is not independent of included components, as some components may take longer to deploy than others. Manually creating new custom objects and new custom fields or manually applying the field type changes are not advisable, as they can introduce human errors and inconsistencies between environments. See Deploy Changes with Change Sets for more details.

The best options to enforce code quality in UC’s continuous integration process are to introduce manual code review before deployment to the testing sandbox and to introduce static code analysis before deployment to the testing sandbox. Manual code review can help identify and fix any errors, bugs, or best practices violations in the code. Static code analysis can help check the code quality, complexity, and security using automated tools and standards. Introducing manual code review before deployment to the production org may be too late, as the code may have already caused defects or issues in the testing sandbox. Increasing the size of the testing team assigned to the project may not improve the code quality, as the testing team may not have the skills or authority to review or modify the code. Testing data creation is outside the scope of code quality.

To track Salesforce metadata throughout the development lifecycle across sandboxes and production, the architect should recommend using an AppExchange or third-party tool that is specialized in Salesforce deployment. These tools can provide features such as version control, dependency analysis, automated testing, and rollback capabilities. Using an Excel sheet to track deployment steps and document the SFDX commands is not a reliable or scalable solution, as it is prone to human errors and does not provide any automation or validation. Using ChangeSet to track deployed customizations is also not a good option, as ChangeSet is limited in the types of metadata it can deploy and does not support versioning or dependency management. Using Salesforce SFDX commands to deploy to different sandboxes is a possible solution, but it requires a high level of technical expertise and does not provide a graphical interface or reporting capabilities.

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.

 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.

 A and C are the correct answers, as they are the project situations that favor an agile methodology. An agile methodology is a flexible and iterative approach that can accommodate changing requirements, deliver value quickly, and enable frequent feedback and collaboration. A is correct, as a digitization project to update an existing customer-facing process and enable quick adjustments is a situation that requires an agile methodology, as it involves transforming a legacy system, adapting to customer needs, and delivering incremental improvements. C is correct, as an environment with a heavy investment in DevOps capabilities for rapid testing and deployment is a situation that requires an agile methodology, as it enables continuous integration and delivery, as well as quality assurance and automation. B is incorrect, as a project to be executed by a third party, with a fixed and formal scope, budget, and timeline is a situation that favors a waterfall methodology, as it involves clear and stable requirements, contractual obligations, and sequential phases. D is incorrect, as a project with well-defined requirements and complex interactions between front- and back-end systems is a situation that favors a waterfall methodology, as it involves detailed planning, design, and testing, as well as minimal changes and dependencies. You can learn more about this topic in the Agile Basics module on Trailhead.

Integrating an agile issue tracker with software testing and continuous integration tools can provide the following benefits:

• Developers can see automated test statuses that commit on a specific user story, which can help them identify and fix any errors or failures quickly.
• Developers can use the committed code’s build status directly on the user story record, which can help them track the progress and quality of their work.

The package development model relies on source tracking to automatically track the metadata changes in the package project. However, not all metadata components are supported by source tracking, and some changes may need to be tracked manually. For example, changes to profiles, permission sets, custom metadata types, and custom settings are not supported by source tracking. You can find the list of unsupported components here1. No manual tracking is required for the changes that are supported by source tracking, nor for the changes made via the Setup UI, as they are automatically captured by the package development model.

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.

Refreshing a sandbox during the release preview window to ensure they have the upcoming release is a step that the team at UC should take to prepare for the new Salesforce release, as it allows them to test their application in an environment that matches the production environment after the upgrade. Running regression tests in an upgraded sandbox to detect any issues with the upgrade is also a step that the team at UC should take to prepare for the new Salesforce release, as it helps them to verify that the existing functionality is not affected by the new features or changes introduced by the upgrade. Reviewing the release notes for automatically-enabled features and technical debt is also a step that the team at UC should take to prepare for the new Salesforce release, as it helps them to understand the impact and benefits of the new features or changes, as well as to identify and resolve any technical debt that may cause issues or conflicts with the upgrade. Contacting Salesforce to schedule a time to upgrade the full sandbox is not a step that the team at UC should take to prepare for the new Salesforce release, as it is not possible to request a specific time for the upgrade of the full sandbox, which is determined by Salesforce and depends on the release window and the pod assignment. Upgrading any SOAP integrations to the newest WSDL as early as possible is not a step that the team at UC should take to prepare for the new Salesforce release, as it is not necessary to upgrade the SOAP integrations to the newest WSDL, unless they want to use the new features or fields introduced by the upgrade. The SOAP integrations will continue to work with the previous WSDL versions, as they are backward compatible.

 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.

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.

An agile team is one that improves and evolves its processes and frequently delivers value to the end users. This is the main characteristic of an agile team, as opposed to a traditional team that follows a fixed plan and delivers on predefined dates. Agile teams use various frameworks, such as Scrum, Kanban, and Extreme Programming, but these are not essential to be agile. Agile teams also have shorter iterations, such as biweekly sprints, but these are not the only way to ensure on-time delivery.

 C and D are the correct answers, as Load Test and Performance Test are the test types that should be suggested to ensure that a large inbound call center does not experience platform slowdowns under high call volume for the Lead object. A load test is a test that measures the performance and behavior of the system under a specific load, such as a large number of concurrent users or requests. A performance test is a test that measures the speed, responsiveness, and stability of the system under various conditions, such as different configurations or environments. These tests can help to identify and prevent any potential issues or bottlenecks that could affect the user experience or the system functionality. A is incorrect, as Unit Test is not a test type that should be suggested for this scenario, as it is a test that verifies the functionality and logic of a single unit of code, such as a method or a class, but not the performance or behavior of the system as a whole. B is incorrect, as Stress Test is not a test type that should be suggested for this scenario, as it is a test that measures the performance and behavior of the system under extreme or abnormal conditions, such as exceeding the capacity or resources of the system, but not the performance or behavior of the system under normal or expected conditions. You can learn more about these tests in the Testing Strategies module on Trailhead.

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.

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.

The best way to ensure that tests execute predictably is to ensure that unit tests generate their own test data, as this will avoid any dependency on the existing data or metadata in the org, which may vary across environments3. Option A is not correct, as ensuring that Record Type IDs match both Production and Sandbox orgs is not a reliable way to ensure test predictability, as Record Type IDs are not guaranteed to be the same across orgs, and may change due to refreshes or deployments4. Option B is not correct, as ensuring executed Apex test run as valid users is not a sufficient way to ensure test predictability, as valid users may have different permissions or profiles across orgs, and may not have access to the required data or metadata5. Option D is not correct, as ensuring unit tests execute with seeAllData=true is not a recommended way to ensure test predictability, as this will make the tests dependent on the existing data in the org, which may not be consistent or isolated.

 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 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

 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.

 The two deployment tools that will support the request are the ANT Migration Tool and VS Code with Salesforce Extension. These tools allow the developers to deploy metadata components from one Salesforce org to another, and also to maintain and modify the code locally in their own machines. Change Sets and Developer Console are not suitable for this scenario, because they do not support deploying to multiple orgs or working offline.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

The deployment script will fail because the new field is not known for the previous API version 35. The Metadata API version determines which components and fields are available for deployment. If a component or field is introduced in a later API version than the one used for deployment, it will not be recognized and will cause an error.

The first step in establishing a governance framework is to identify the relevant stakeholders from within the organization to obtain their goals and objectives. This will help to define the scope, roles, responsibilities, and processes for managing the Salesforce initiatives. The other options are possible steps to take later, but not the first one.

 Two options that should be considered when making production changes in a highly regulated and audited environment are: all changes including hotfixes should be reviewed against security principles, and any production change should have explicit stakeholder approval. These options can help ensure that the changes are compliant with the regulations and have the necessary authorization and documentation. No manual steps should be carried out is not a valid option, as some changes may require manual steps, such as data migration or post-deployment verification. After deployment, the development team should test and verify functionality in production is also not a valid option, as testing and verification should be done in a lower environment before deploying to production, and the responsibility of testing and verifying functionality in production should be assigned to a different team than the development team. See Application Lifecycle and Deployment for more details.

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.

 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.

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.

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 D are the correct answers, as they are the locking behaviors that will occur during a deployment. A is correct, as the production org will be locked and administrators cannot modify metadata during this time, to prevent any conflicts or inconsistencies in the deployment. D is correct, as the production org will be locked and users will still be able to read/write data to the org, to minimize the impact on the business operations and user experience. B is incorrect, as the sandbox org will not be locked and administrators can still modify metadata, as the sandbox org is not the target of the deployment. C is incorrect, as the production org will not be locked and users can only read data during this time, as this would disrupt the business operations and user experience. You can learn more about the locking behaviors in the [Deploy Changes with Change Sets] unit on Trailhead.

The reason why the Apex classes are not able to access the metadata of the target org during testing is that UC needs to get the managed package certified by the Salesforce security review. This is because Apex code in a managed package can only access the metadata of the target org if the package has passed the security review and has been granted the Modify Metadata permission. See Apex Metadata API for more details.

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 correct statement for the Staging sandbox in the diagram is that when created or refreshed, the Staging sandbox is a full replica of Production, as it is a full copy sandbox that copies all the data and metadata from the production org. Option B is not true, as the Staging sandbox is not automatically refreshed, but manually refreshed by the administrator. Option C is not true, as Salesforce major releases may occur in Staging and Production at different times, depending on the sandbox preview window. Option D is not true, as the Staging environment can be updated more frequently than once every two weeks, depending on the sandbox refresh interval.

The best practice for writing test classes is to not use SeeAllData and generate data in the test methods. This ensures that the test classes are independent of the data in the org and can run successfully in any environment. Creating test data in production or setting SeeAllData to True can cause unexpected failures or data conflicts.

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 test class will fail and the developer will see a message stating: Methods defined as TestMethod do not support Web service callouts. This is because the test class cannot make a real web service callout, as it would depend on an external service that may not be available or reliable. Therefore, the developer needs to use the Test.setMock() method to specify a mock class that simulates the web service response. The test class will not skip the web service callout, nor will it make the actual callout. It is possible to save the test class without the Test.setMock() statement, but it will not run successfully.

Minor and Major releases should use the same Full copy sandbox for UAT, as this will ensure that the testing environment is consistent and has the same data and configuration as the production org.

 The daily release process is the most suitable for creating a new report to support an urgent client request, as it can deliver the functionality in a timely manner. Creating the report in a full sandbox and then deploying it to production can ensure the quality and security of the report.

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.

A suitable branching policy to recommend for multiple development teams that work on separate streams of work, with different timelines, is trunk-based development. This policy allows each team to work on their own feature branches, and merge them to the main branch (trunk) frequently, using pull requests and code reviews. This can help avoid merge conflicts, ensure code quality, and enable continuous integration and delivery. Leaf-based development is not a valid branching policy, as it is a term used to describe the nodes in a tree data structure. GitHub flow is a specific implementation of trunk-based development, but it is not a branching policy by itself. Scratch-org-based development is not a branching policy, but a development model that uses scratch orgs as ephemeral environments. See Trunk-Based Development for more details.

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.

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.

 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.

The best practices to support UC’s new package development strategy are to test developed packages in test environments before installing to production, and to consult the metadata coverage report to identify features supported by packages. Testing packages in test environments can help to ensure the quality and functionality of the packages, as well as to identify and resolve any issues or dependencies before deploying to production. Consulting the metadata coverage report can help to determine which features can be included in packages, and which ones need to be deployed using other methods. Version control still needs to be used, as packages do not manage all the code and configuration, but only the components that are part of the package. Moving everything in the existing codebase to a single monolithic package is not a good practice, as it reduces the modularity, maintainability, and reusability of the code. It is better to create smaller packages that are focused on specific features or functionalities.

The data model becomes more complex as the scope in the org increases, and the declarative sharing and visibility capabilities may not be sufficient to ensure correct visibility of objects and records for multiple LOBs. Apex design and multiple currencies are not specific challenges for a single-org strategy.