Development-Lifecycle-and-Deployment-Architect Practice Exam Questions with Answers Salesforce Certified Platform Development Lifecycle and Deployment Architect (Plat-Arch-202) Certification

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.

The recommendation to satisfy the customer requirements is to use a Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment tool and build the pipeline to deploy to sandboxes and production. A Continuous Integration and Continuous Deployment tool can automate the process of building, testing, and deploying the changes to different environments, as well as provide feedback and visibility into the deployment status and results. This can help to streamline and accelerate the deployment process, as well as to ensure consistency and quality across the environments. Using SFDX and documenting the deployment commands with steps to be executed for each environment is not a good recommendation, as it still requires manual intervention and execution, which can be error-prone and time-consuming. Using ANT script and building a custom application to run the script and use change sets to deploy supported metadata is not a good recommendation, as it involves using multiple tools and methods, which can increase the complexity and risk of the deployment process. Using an AppExchange solution that packages the deployment components and you can run the deployment wizard to track deployment result is not a good recommendation, as it may not support all the metadata types and features that need to be deployed, and it may not integrate well with the SFDX tools and methodologies that UC is using.

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 Metadata API can be used to migrate configuration changes between two organizations or export current customization in the organization as an xml file. The Metadata API allows developers to retrieve, deploy, create, update, or delete the metadata components that define the structure and behavior of the Salesforce org. The Metadata API cannot perform CRUD operations to manage records in the organization or migrate data changes between two organizations using a csv file. These operations require the use of other APIs, such as the REST API or the Bulk API.

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.

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.

Escalating and communicating to stakeholders the risk and mitigating it by allocating additional resources or extending the timeline of the project to support the new requirement based on stakeholders’ input are two actions that should be performed to mitigate the risk. These actions help to manage the scope change and ensure that the project is delivered with the expected quality and functionality.

 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.

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 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 success criteria for data migration and the manual and automated data validation approaches are two key areas of UC’s data migration test plan that should be included. The success criteria define the expected outcomes and quality standards for the data migration process. The data validation approaches ensure that the data is accurate, complete, and consistent after the migration.

A requirement traceability matrix is a project artifact that maps each requirement to its corresponding test cases, ensuring that all requirements are covered by testing. User acceptance test scripts are the actual steps to execute the test cases, not the artifact that links them to the requirements. Testing strategy and test execution plan are high-level documents that describe the overall approach and schedule for testing, not the specific mapping of requirements and test cases.

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.

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.

Creating design standards focused on integration and providing training to all teams is the best way to address the challenges of having various integration patterns and a lack of common understanding of the integration landscape. Design standards can help to establish consistent and best practices for integrating Salesforce with other systems, such as choosing the appropriate integration style, pattern, tool, and protocol. Training can help to educate and align the teams on the design standards and the integration architecture.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

The benefits of managing change with Packaged Development are:

Versioning to help with change management, as it allows the developers to track the changes made to the metadata and roll back to previous versions if needed.

Making the release cycle more efficient and agile, as it enables the developers to deploy smaller and more frequent updates to the orgs, reducing the risk of errors and conflicts.

Modular development process with specification of dependencies among packages, as it allows the developers to break down the metadata into logical units that can be reused and updated independently, while ensuring that the dependencies are resolved correctly. Managing the number of sandboxes needed to successfully deploy is not a benefit of Packaged Development, as it is more related to the sandbox strategy and the development model. Clearly dividing developers and testers is also not a benefit of Packaged Development, as it is more related to the team structure and the testing strategy.

The advice that a technical architect should provide in a Change Advisory Board meeting is troubleshooting strategies for deployment issues. This is because the Change Advisory Board is responsible for reviewing and approving changes to the IT environment, and the technical architect should provide guidance on how to resolve any potential problems that may arise during the deployment process1. The other options are not relevant for the Change Advisory Board meeting, as they are more related to the requirements analysis, design, or testing phases of the development lifecycle.

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.

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.

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.

Following an ALM process can help avoid defects from being deployed to production, by ensuring that the code is tested and validated in different environments before reaching the end users. It can also help release new features on a consistent schedule, by establishing a clear roadmap and timeline for the development and deployment phases. Moreover, it can help prevent existing working functionality from stopping, by implementing backup and rollback strategies, as well as monitoring and troubleshooting tools. Training new users after each minor and major release is not a benefit of ALM, but rather a best practice for user adoption and change management. Defining metrics for application development project success is not a benefit of ALM, but rather a part of the project management and evaluation process.

 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.

 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.

These are the correct answers because they are essential components of a governance framework that helps to manage the changes and enhancements to the Salesforce application. Requirements management is the process of capturing, analyzing, prioritizing, and tracking the business needs and requests. Change control log is the tool that records and tracks the status of all change requests and approvals. Documentation repository is the central place that stores and organizes all the project artifacts and deliverables. Automated testing and continuous integration are not necessary components of a governance framework, but rather best practices for ensuring the quality and reliability of the code and configuration.

 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.

 Identifying the relevant data and verifying the data integrity can help ensure the quality and accuracy of the migrated data. Using a full sandbox and performing test runs with real data can help validate the migration process and identify any issues or risks.

 The following issues could be affecting their deployment times:

The number and complexity of Apex tests will have a large impact on the deployment time, as the tests will take longer to run and consume more resources.

Some components such as profiles, custom junction objects, and fields take longer to process than others, as they have more dependencies and validations to check.

Users are working in the org during deployment can affect users and the deployment, as they can lock records or metadata components that are being deployed, causing errors or delays.

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.

Two advantages of automated test data loads over manual data loads are that automated loads can be done with no human oversight and that automated loads are reliable in their results. Automated loads can be scheduled and executed without human intervention, which saves time and effort. Automated loads can also ensure that the data is consistent and accurate, which reduces errors and risks. Automated loads do not necessarily increase costs, as they can also save money in the long run by improving efficiency and quality. Automated loads can also be scripted by CICD tools, which is one of the benefits of using them.

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.

 To reduce defects, the architect should recommend increasing the code coverage to 95% and adding more details to the acceptance criteria. Increasing the code coverage can help ensure that the code is thoroughly tested and meets the quality standards. Adding more details to the acceptance criteria can help clarify the requirements and expectations for the functionality. Using the test script to define the test classes or having the test analyst create the test classes are not good practices, as they can introduce errors and inconsistencies in the testing process.

 Cross-site scripting is the most common reason that the prospect AppExchange products fail the security review. Cross-site scripting (XSS) is a type of web application vulnerability that allows an attacker to inject malicious code into a web page that is viewed by other users. XSS can compromise the security and privacy of the users, as well as the functionality and performance of the application. Salesforce has strict security standards and policies for AppExchange products, and any product that has XSS vulnerabilities will not pass the security review. CRUD/FLS, session hacking, and SOQL injection are also security issues that can affect AppExchange products, but they are not as common or severe as XSS.

 B and D are the decisions that should be made by an Architecture Review Board (ARB), as they involve choosing the best methodology and authentication mechanism for the project, which have significant impacts on the project scope, quality, and security. A is not a decision that should be made by an ARB, as it is a low-level design decision that can be made by the developers or technical leads. C is not a decision that should be made by an ARB, as it is a testing decision that can be made by the testers or quality assurance leads.

QUESTIONNO: 87

What is the process used to initiate a connection for change sets?

A. Modify the source org to allow an outbound connection to the target org

B. Modify the target org to accept an outbound connection from the source org

C. Modify the target org to accept an inbound connection from the source org

D. Modify the source org to allow an inbound connection to the target org

Answer: A

A is the correct answer, as the process to initiate a connection for change sets is to modify the source org to allow an outbound connection to the target org. B and C are incorrect, as the target org does not need to accept any connection from the source org, but only to deploy the inbound change sets that are sent from the source org. D is incorrect, as the source org does not need to allow any inbound connection to the target org, but only to create and upload the outbound change sets to the target org. You can learn more about this process in the Change Sets Basics module on Trailhead.

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 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.

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 suggest the following actions to help UC discover the failing unit tests earlier: Train the administrators to make their changes in a special “admin changes” sandbox, and then promote to production, and ensure a metadata backup is committed to version control every day and a diff published to the release team. Training the administrators to use a sandbox can help prevent direct changes to production that can break the code or the unit tests. Ensuring a metadata backup and a diff can help identify any changes that have been made to production and compare them with the source of truth.

Kanban can help clarify whether value is being delivered to the business by using metrics, like lead time and throughput, which increase transparency. Lead time measures how long it takes to complete a work item from the time it is requested, and throughput measures how many work items are completed in a given time period. These metrics can help the business stakeholders see the progress and performance of the development teams, and align their expectations with the reality. Kanban does not respond to unplanned work and changes by dropping everything and jumping on the new request, as this would disrupt the flow and quality of work. Kanban does not make use of the Salesforce Agile Accelerator, as this is a tool for managing agile projects. Kanban does limit work in progress, but this is not the main reason why it can help clarify whether value is being delivered to the business.

Deploying metadata to production orgs using package development model is the best option for the multi-org deployment strategy, as it allows you to create modular and reusable packages that can be easily installed and updated across different orgs. Deploying metadata to production orgs using managed packages is not suitable for this scenario, as managed packages are typically used by ISVs to distribute their applications to customers, and they have some limitations and restrictions that may not fit the requirements of UC. Deploying metadata to production orgs using unmanaged packages is also not a good option, as unmanaged packages are mainly used for one-time distribution of components, and they do not support upgrades or dependencies. Deploying metadata to production orgs using change sets is not feasible for this scenario, as change sets can only be used to deploy metadata between connected orgs in the same Salesforce instance, and UC has separate orgs for each region. See [Package Development Model] for more details.

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.

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.

Aura accessibility tests can be called in JSTEST and WebDriver Test environments. JSTEST is a JavaScript testing framework that runs on Node.js and can be used to test Aura components. WebDriver Test is a Selenium-based testing framework that can be used to test the user interface and accessibility of Aura components. ACCTEST and AuraDriver Test are not valid environments for calling Aura accessibility tests.

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.

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.

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.

The best option is to refactor the approach to the feature in an upgraded sandbox, as this will allow the developer to test the compatibility and functionality of the code with the new platform release. Option A is risky, as Salesforce may not fix the issue before the production upgrade. Option B is not feasible, as changing the API version of the code will not change the platform version of the sandbox. Option C is not recommended, as delaying the upgrade will only postpone the problem and may cause more issues later.

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.

These are the correct answers because the project steering committee plays a role in approving deviations from the chosen methodology, when required to address project issues, and setting the criteria for selecting agile or waterfall methodology to be used on internal projects. The steering committee does not design a methodology, but rather chooses one from the existing ones. The steering committee does not enforce that corporate project stage gates are part of the chosen methodology but rather ensures that the chosen methodology aligns with the corporate project stage gates.

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.

 A and C are the advantages of using an Agile Project Management tool, as they provide visibility into the project progress and status, and consolidate the project artifacts in a common repository. B is not an advantage of using an Agile Project Management tool, as it depends on the communication and collaboration skills of the team members and stakeholders. D is not an advantage of using an Agile Project Management tool, as it is more related to the governance framework and methodology of the project

The best practice for releasing near peak business periods is to avoid doing so, as it can cause disruption and risk to the business operations. Making declarative changes in production, bypassing regression testing, and having developers conduct user acceptance testing are all bad practices that can introduce errors and instability to the system.

 This is the correct answer because the executive sponsor is the senior leader who provides strategic direction, funding, and support for the project. The executive sponsor is also responsible for approving any changes to the project scope, budget, or timeline that may affect the project outcomes or benefits.

 In the Metadata API, the External Object metadata type represents external objects. In the Metadata API, the Custom Object metadata type represents external objects.

The best option is to ensure the sandbox will be on the release preview, which means it will be upgraded to the new platform release before the production environment. This will allow the team to test the deployment in a realistic scenario and catch any potential issues. Option A is not ideal, as the staging and production support sandboxes will not be on the same platform version as the production environment. Option C is also not ideal, as the production support sandbox will not be on the same platform version as the production environment. Option D is risky, as the staging sandbox refresh may not complete in time for the go-live.

The two sandbox types that would be appropriate to use as the hotfix environment are Developer sandbox and Developer Pro sandbox. These sandbox types are suitable for testing and deploying quick fixes, as they are easy to create and refresh, and have a minimal data and metadata footprint. A Partial Copy sandbox or a Full sandbox would be too large and complex for a hotfix environment, and would take longer to create and refresh.