Practice Free Workday-Pro-Integrations Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam Exam Questions Answers With Explanation

In this case, you're asked to create a calculated field that:

Filters dependent records

Includes only child relationships

This means:

The worker has multiple dependents (a multi-instance field).

You need to extract only those dependent(s) where the relationship is “Child”.

To achieve this in Workday, use:

True/False Condition ? check if the relationship descriptor = "Child"

Extract Multi-Instance ? filters the multi-instance field (Dependents) using the above condition to return only matching records

This two-step logic filters multi-instance relationships correctly.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A and B are missing Extract Multi-Instance, which is required to filter multi-values.

C includes Text Constant unnecessarily — only True/False Condition and Extract Multi-Instance are required.

The scenario involves a Core Connector: Worker integration configured to output Position Title and Business Title fields for workers who meet the Integration Population Eligibility criteria (Is Manager = true), with the Transaction Log service subscribed to the "Position Edit Event." The integration is launched with specific date parameters, and a test is performed by updating Jared Ellis’ Business Title using the "Change Business Title" related action. Jared is a manager, and the change is logged with an effective date of 05/24/2024 and an entry moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM. Despite this, Jared does not appear in the output. Let’s determine why and identify the configuration element that needs modification.

In Workday, the Core Connector: Worker integration uses the Transaction Log service to detect changes based on subscribed transaction types. The subscribed transaction type in this case is "Position Edit Event," which is triggered when a position is edited via the "Edit Position" business process. However, the test scenario involves a "Change Business Title" related action, which is a distinct business process in Workday. This action updates the Business Title field but does not necessarily trigger a "Position Edit Event." Instead, it generates a different event type, such as a "Title Change Event" (as noted in Jared’s worker history), depending on how the system logs the action.

The date launch parameters provided are:

As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM – The latest point for entry moments.

Effective Date: 05/25/2024 – The latest effective date for changes.

Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM – The starting point for entry moments from the last run.

Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024 – The starting point for effective dates from the last run.

Jared’s change has:

Entry Moment: 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM – Falls between 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM and 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM.

Effective Date: 05/24/2024 – Falls between 05/23/2024 and 05/25/2024.

The date parameters correctly cover the time window of Jared’s change, meaning the issue is not with the date range but with the event detection logic. The Transaction Log subscription determines which events are processed by the integration. Since the subscription is set to "Position Edit Event" and the change was made via "Change Business Title" (logged as a "Title Change Event"), the integration does not recognize this event because it is not subscribed to the appropriate transaction type.

To include Jared Ellis in the output, the Transaction Log subscription must be modified to include the event type associated with the "Change Business Title" action, such as "Title Change Event" or a broader category like "Position Related Event" that encompasses both position edits and title changes. This ensures the integration captures the specific update made to Jared’s Business Title.

Let’s evaluate the other options:

B. Date launch parameters: The parameters already include Jared’s entry moment and effective date within the specified ranges (05/23/2024 to 05/25/2024). Adjusting these would not address the mismatch between the subscribed event type and the actual event triggered.

C. Integration Field Attributes: These are set to output Position Title and Business Title, and the change to Business Title is within scope. The field configuration is correct and does not need modification.

D. Integration Population Eligibility: This is set to "Is Manager = true," and Jared is a manager. This filter is functioning as intended and is not the issue.

The root cause is the Transaction Log subscription not aligning with the event type generated by the "Change Business Title" action, making A. Transaction log subscription the correct answer.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Core Connector: Worker – Section on "Transaction Log Configuration" explains how subscribing to specific transaction types filters the events processed by the integration.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Change Detection – Details how different business processes (e.g., Edit Position vs. Change Business Title) generate distinct event types in the Transaction Log.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Event Subscription – Notes the importance of aligning subscription types with the specific business actions being tested or monitored.

A valid XSLT file must include the following key components:

Root Element: or

Namespace Declaration: Usually xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform "

At Least One to define transformation behavior

From W3C and Workday documentation:

“A valid XSLT file must contain a stylesheet root element, a namespace, and at least one template to be considered executable.”

Why others are incorrect:

A. Prefix and header are not structural requirements.

B. "Transformation" is vague; it's the template that implements it.

C. Headers and footers are not required or defined elements in XSLT.

This question explores the relationship between an Integration System User (ISU) and an Integration System Security Group (ISSG) in Workday Pro Integrations, focusing on how security is structured for integrations. Let’s analyze the relationship and evaluate each option to determine the correct answer.

Understanding ISU and ISSG in Workday

Integration System User (ISU): An ISU is a dedicated user account in Workday specifically designed for integrations. It acts as a "robot account" or service account, used by integration systems to interact with Workday via APIs, web services, or other integration mechanisms (e.g., EIBs, Core Connectors). ISUs are typically configured with a username, password, and specific security settings, such as disabling UI sessions and setting session timeouts to prevent expiration (commonly set to 0 minutes). ISUs are not human users but are instead programmatic accounts for automated processes.

Integration System Security Group (ISSG): An ISSG is a security container or group in Workday that defines the permissions and access rights for integration systems. ISSGs are used to manage what data and functionalities an integration (or its associated ISU) can access or modify within Workday. There are two types of ISSGs:

Unconstrained: Allows access to all data instances secured by the group.

Constrained: Limits access to a subset of data instances based on context (e.g., specific segments or data scopes).ISSGs are configured with domain security policies, granting permissions like "Get" (read), "Put" (write), "View," or "Modify" for specific domains (e.g., Worker Data, Integration Build).

Relationship Between ISU and ISSG: In Workday, security for integrations is managed through a hierarchical structure. An ISU is associated with or assigned to an ISSG to inherit its permissions. The ISSG acts as the security policy container, defining what the ISU can do, while the ISU is the account executing those actions. This relationship ensures that integrations have controlled, audited access to Workday data and functions, adhering to the principle of least privilege.

Evaluating Each Option

Let’s assess each option based on Workday’s security model for integrations:

Option A: The ISU is a member of the ISSG.

Analysis: This is correct. In Workday, an ISU is assigned to or associated with an ISSG to gain the necessary permissions. The ISSG serves as a security group that contains one or more ISUs, granting them access to specific domains and functionalities. For example, when creating an ISU, you use the "Create Integration System User" task, and then assign it to an ISSG via the "Assign Integration System Security Groups" or "Maintain Permissions for Security Group" tasks. Multiple ISUs can belong to the same ISSG, inheriting its permissions. This aligns with Workday’s security framework, where security groups (like ISSGs) manage user (or ISU) access.

Why It Fits: The ISU is a "member" of the ISSG in the sense that it is linked to the group to receive its permissions, enabling secure integration operations. This is a standard practice for managing integration security in Workday.

Option B: The ISU owns the ISSG.

Analysis: This is incorrect. In Workday, ISUs do not "own" ISSGs. Ownership or control of security groups is not a concept applicable to ISUs, which are service accounts for integrations, not administrative entities with authority over security structures. ISSGs are created and managed by Workday administrators or security professionals using tasks like "Create Security Group" and "Maintain Permissions for Security Group." The ISU is simply a user account assigned to the ISSG, not its owner or controller.

Why It Doesn’t Fit: Ownership implies administrative control, which ISUs lack; they are designed for execution, not management of security groups.

Option C: The ISU grants security policies to the ISSG.

Analysis: This is incorrect. ISUs do not have the authority to grant or modify security policies for ISSGs. Security policies are defined and assigned to ISSGs by Workday administrators or security roles with appropriate permissions (e.g., Security Configuration domain access). ISUs are passive accounts that execute integrations based on the permissions granted by the ISSG they are assigned to. Granting permissions is an administrative function, not an ISU capability.

Why It Doesn’t Fit: ISUs are integration accounts, not security administrators, so they cannot modify or grant policies to ISSGs.

Option D: The ISU controls what accounts are in the ISSG.

Analysis: This is incorrect. ISUs do not control membership or configuration of ISSGs. Adding or removing accounts (including other ISUs) from an ISSG is an administrative task performed by users with security configuration permissions, using tasks like "Maintain Permissions for Security Group." ISUs are limited to executing integration tasks based on their assigned ISSG permissions, not managing group membership.

Why It Doesn’t Fit: ISUs lack the authority to manage ISSG membership or structure, as they are not administrative accounts but integration-specific service accounts.

Final Verification

Based on Workday’s security model, the correct relationship is that an ISU is a member of an ISSG, inheriting its permissions to perform integration tasks. This is consistent with the principle of least privilege, where ISSGs define access, and ISUs execute within those boundaries. The other options misattribute administrative or ownership roles to ISUs, which are not supported by Workday’s design.

Supporting Information

The relationship is grounded in Workday’s integration security practices, including:

Creating an ISU via the "Create Integration System User" task.

Creating an ISSG via the "Create Security Group" task, selecting "Integration System Security Group (Unconstrained)" or "Constrained."

Assigning the ISU to the ISSG using tasks like "Assign Integration System Security Groups" or "Maintain Permissions for Security Group."

Configuring domain security policies (e.g., Get, Put) for the ISSG to control ISU access to domains like Worker Data, Integration Build, etc.

Activating security changes via "Activate Pending Security Policy Changes."

This structure ensures secure, controlled access for integrations, with ISSGs acting as the permission container and ISUs as the executing accounts.

Key References

The explanation aligns with Workday Pro Integrations documentation and best practices, including:

Integration security overviews and training on Workday Community.

Guides for creating ISUs and ISSGs in implementation documentation (e.g., NetIQ, Microsoft Learn, Reco.ai).

Tutorials on configuring domain permissions and security groups for integrations (e.g., ServiceNow, Apideck, Surety Systems).

The element is the root element in an XSLT document. It must include:

XSLT Version – This defines the XSLT specification version being used (e.g., version="1.0" or version="2.0").

Namespaces – XSLT operates within an XML namespace (xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform "), which is required to define the transformation rules.

Breakdown of Answer Choices:

A. XSLT Version & Namespaces ? (Correct)

The element requires both the XSLT version and the namespace declaration for proper execution.

Example:

xml

CopyEdit

B. XSLT Version & Encoding ? (Incorrect)

Encoding (encoding="UTF-8") is a property of the XML declaration (), not an attribute of .

C. XML Version & Namespaces ? (Incorrect)

XML version () is part of the XML prolog, not an attribute of .

D. Namespaces & Encoding ? (Incorrect)

Encoding is not an attribute of .

Final Correct Syntax:

This ensures that the XSLT file is processed correctly.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References:

ReportWriterTraining.pdf – Chapter 9: Working With XML and XSLT covers XSLT basics, including the required attributes for .

Workday_Advanced_Business_Process_part_2.pdf – Chapter 5: Web Services and Integrations details how Workday uses XSLT for transformations .

To upload an XSLT file to a Document Transformation integration system, you use the Configure Integration Attachment Service.

As per Workday documentation:

“The Configure Integration Attachment Service option on the Related Actions menu allows you to attach and manage XSLT files or other transformation documents used in Document Transformation integrations.”

This is the initial and correct method to upload the XSLT used for transforming incoming or outgoing XML.

Why the others are incorrect:

B. Configure Integration Attributes configures integration behavior, not attachments.

C and D reference invalid or misnamed tasks; they are not valid Workday tasks for XSLT upload.

The scenario involves a Core Connector: Worker integration using DIS to export a full file of personal data, restricted to employees only (excluding contingent workers). In Workday, the Worker business object includes both employees and contingent workers, so a filter is needed to limit the population. Let’s explore the configuration:

Requirement:Ensure the integration outputs only employees, not contingent workers. This is a population-level filter, not a field transformation or override.

Integration Population Eligibility:In Core Connectors, the Configure Integration Population Eligibility related action defines which workers are included in the integration’s dataset. You can set eligibility rules, such as "Worker Type equals Employee" (or exclude "Contingent Worker"), to filter the population before data is extracted. For a full file export (no change detection), this ensures the entire output is limited to employees.

Option Analysis:

A. Configure the Integration Population Eligibility: Correct. This filters the worker population to employees only, aligning with the requirement at the dataset level.

B. Configure a map for worker type in the Integration Maps: Incorrect. Integration Maps transform field values (e.g., "Employee" to "EMP"), not filter the population of workers included in the extract.

C. Configure worker type in the Integration Field Attributes: Incorrect. Integration Field Attributes refine how a field is output (e.g., phone type), not the overall population eligibility.

D. Configure eligibility in the Integration Field Overrides: Incorrect. Integration Field Overrides replace field values with custom data (e.g., a calculated field), not define the population of workers.

Implementation:

Edit the Core Connector: Worker integration.

Use the related action Configure Integration Population Eligibility.

Add a rule: "Worker Type equals Employee" (or exclude "Contingent Worker").

Save and test to ensure only employee data is exported.

References from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide:

Core Connectors & Document Transformation: Section on "Configuring Integration Population Eligibility" explains filtering the worker population for outbound integrations.

Integration System Fundamentals: Discusses population scoping in Core Connectors to meet specific export criteria.

To create a connector-based integration with additional custom configurations such as dynamic file naming and internal-to-external value mapping, the following steps must be followed:

Enable Needed Integration Services:

This step involves activating the required integration services to ensure that the necessary API calls, security, and processing capabilities are available within Workday.

Configure Integration Field Attributes:

Integration Field Attributes allow customization of fields within the integration, enabling changes to formats, mappings, and transformations, such as including a dynamically generated file name with the current date and integration run number.

Configure Integration Maps:

Integration Maps are used to transform internal values into external values as per the vendor’s requirements. This ensures that data fields in Workday align correctly with external system specifications.

Configure Sequence Generator:

The Sequence Generator is used to append unique identifiers to output files, ensuring each integration run produces a uniquely named file (e.g., including the current date and run number).

This workflow ensures that the integration is set up efficiently while meeting the vendor’s additional configuration needs.

The Integration System User (ISU) in Workday is a specialized user account designed for automation and system-level integrations. It can be assigned to any number of integration systems concurrently — there is no limit.

From Workday documentation and Pro training:

“A single ISU can be assigned to multiple integration systems across tenants and environments, provided it has the correct permissions and security group assignments. Workday does not impose a hard limit on the number of systems an ISU can be linked to.”

This design provides scalability for environments with multiple integrations (e.g., EIBs, Core Connectors, Studio integrations) without needing to create redundant users.

Incorrect Options Explained:

A, B, C: These options imply arbitrary limits (one, three, five), which do not exist in Workday's ISU architecture.

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 XML provided shows the response from this operation, and you need to write XSLT to format the element within the section. Specifically, you need to output the date "2024-05-15" (as seen in the XML) in the format "15-07-2024" (day-month-year). The root template of your XSLT matches on and applies templates to . You are using the format-date XPath function, which follows the syntax: format-date($value as xs:date?, $picture as xs:string). Let’s analyze the XML, the requirement, and each option to determine the correct XPath syntax.

Understanding the XML and Requirement

The provided XML snippet shows a response from the Get_Job_Profiles web service operation in Workday, formatted in SOAP XML with the Workday namespace (xmlns:wd="urn:com.workday/bsvc"). Key elements relevant to the question include:

The root element is .

It contains , which includes elements.

Within , there is , which contains with the value 2024-05-15.

You need to transform this date into the format "15-07-2024" (DD-MM-YYYY), where:

"15" is the day (D01 for two digits).

"07" is the month (M01 for two digits, noting the XML shows May, but the question specifies July for the output format—likely a hypothetical or test case adjustment).

"2024" is the year (Y0001 for four digits).

The format-date function in XPath 2.0 (used by Workday) formats a date value according to a picture string. The syntax is:

First parameter: The date value (e.g., wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Effective_Date), which must be an xs:date or convertible to one.

Second parameter: The picture string (e.g., '[D01]-[M01]-[Y0001]'), specifying the format using patterns like:

[D01] for two-digit day (01-31).

[M01] for two-digit month (01-12).

[Y0001] for four-digit year (e.g., 2024).

The question specifies that the root template matches and applies templates to , so the XPath must navigate to within that context.

Analysis of Options

Let’s evaluate each option based on the format-date syntax, the XML structure, and the required output format "15-07-2024":

Option A: format-date('[D01]-[M01]-[Y0001]’, wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Effective_Date)

This option places the picture string ('[D01]-[M01]-[Y0001]') as the first parameter and the date value (wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Effective_Date) as the second. However, the format-date function requires the date value as the first parameter and the picture string as the second, per the syntax format-date($value, $picture). Reversing the parameters is incorrect and will result in an error or unexpected output, as format-date expects an xs:date? first. Thus, this option is invalid.

Option B: format-date (wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Effective_Date, '[D01]-[M01]-[Y0001]')

This option correctly follows the format-date syntax:

First parameter: wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Effective_Date, which points to the element in the XML (e.g., 2024-05-15). This is an xs:date value, as Workday web services typically return dates in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD), which format-date can process.

Second parameter: '[D01]-[M01]-[Y0001]', which specifies the output format:

[D01] outputs the day as two digits (e.g., "15").

[M01] outputs the month as two digits (e.g., "05" for May, but the question requests "07" for July—assuming a test case adjustment or hypothetical transformation).

[Y0001] outputs the year as four digits (e.g., "2024").

The XPath wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Effective_Date is correctly nested under the context, as the template matches on . This would transform "2024-05-15" into "15-05-2024" (or "15-07-2024" if the month is adjusted in the logic), matching the required day-month-year format. This option is valid and correct.

Option C: format-date (wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Effective_Date, '[M01]-[D01]-[Y0001]')

This option also follows the correct format-date syntax, with the date value first and the picture string second. However, the picture string '[M01]-[D01]-[Y0001]' specifies a month-day-year format:

[M01] outputs the month first (e.g., "05" for May).

[D01] outputs the day second (e.g., "15").

[Y0001] outputs the year last (e.g., "2024").

This would transform "2024-05-15" into "05-15-2024," which does not match the required "15-07-2024" (day-month-year) format. Thus, this option is incorrect for the specified output.

Option D: format-date('[M01]-[D01]-[Y0001]’, wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Effective_Date)

Similar to Option A, this option reverses the parameters, placing the picture string ('[M01]-[D01]-[Y0001]') first and the date value (wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Effective_Date) second. As explained earlier, format-date requires the date value as the first parameter, so this syntax is incorrect and will not work as intended. This option is invalid.

Why Option B is Correct

Option B correctly uses the format-date function with the proper syntax:

It places the date value (wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Effective_Date) as the first parameter, referencing the element in the XML.

It uses the picture string '[D01]-[M01]-[Y0001]' as the second parameter, which formats the date as "DD-MM-YYYY" (e.g., "15-05-2024" for the XML’s "2024-05-15," or "15-07-2024" as specified, assuming a month adjustment in the transformation logic).

The XPath is appropriate for the context, as the template matches , and is a valid path within it.

The question’s mention of "15-07-2024" suggests either a hypothetical adjustment (e.g., the EIB or XSLT logic modifies the month to July) or a test case variation. Since the XML shows "2024-05-15," the format-date function would output "15-05-2024" with the given picture string, but the principle of formatting day-month-year remains correct. Workday’s XSLT implementation supports such transformations, and the format-date function is well-documented for this purpose.

Practical Example in XSLT

Here’s how this might look in your XSLT:

This would process the (e.g., "2024-05-15") and output "15-05-2024," aligning with the day-month-year format requested (adjusted for the hypothetical "07" if needed elsewhere in the logic).

Verification with Workday Documentation

The Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide and SOAP API Reference (available via Workday Community) detail the use of XPath functions like format-date for transforming web service responses. The Get_Job_Profiles operation returns job profile data, including effective dates, in ISO format, and XSLT transformations are commonly used in EIBs to reformat data. The format-date function’s syntax and picture string patterns (e.g., [D01], [M01], [Y0001]) are standard in XPath 2.0, as implemented in Workday’s integration tools.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References

Section: XSLT Transformations in EIBs – Describes using XSLT to transform web service responses, including date formatting with format-date.

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

Section: XPath Functions – Explains the syntax and usage of format-date($value, $picture), including picture string patterns like [D01], [M01], and [Y0001].

Workday Community SOAP API Reference – Provides examples of date formatting in XSLT for Workday web services.

Option B is the verified answer, as it correctly applies the format-date function to format the in the required day-month-year format.

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) 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 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 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).

The task is to write XSLT within a template matching wd:Report_Data/wd:Report_Entry to categorize wd:Job_Skills data, outputting "HR Skills" if the value contains "HR" and "NON-HR Skills" if it does not, using a series of elements. The correct syntax must use the contains() function to check for the substring "HR" within wd:Job_Skills, as the question implies partial matching (e.g., "HR Specialist" or "Senior HR"), not exact equality.

Let’s analyze each option:

Option A:

xml

HR Skills

NON-HR Skills

Issues:

is misused here. It outputs the result of the expression (e.g., "true" or "false" for a comparison), not the conditional text. The inside won’t execute as intended.

The = operator checks for exact equality (e.g., wd:Job_Skills must be exactly "HR"), not substring presence, which contradicts the requirement to check if "HR" is contained within the value.

is malformed (self-closing without a test attribute) and misplaced.

Verdict: Incorrect syntax and logic.

Option B:

xml

HR Skills

NON-HR Skills

Issues:

Similar to A, outputs the boolean result of contains() ("true" or "false"), not the conditional text "HR Skills" or "NON-HR Skills."

The elements are inside invalid tags (self-closing, no test), rendering them ineffective.

While contains() is correct for substring checking, the structure fails to meet the requirement.

Verdict: Incorrect structure despite using contains().

Option C:

xml

HR Skills

NON-HR Skills

Analysis:

Uses correctly with test attributes, satisfying the "series of elements" requirement.

However, wd:Job_Skills='HR' tests for exact equality, not whether "HR" is contained within the value. For example, "HR Specialist" would fail this test, outputting "NON-HR Skills" incorrectly.

Verdict: Semantically incorrect due to exact matching instead of substring checking.

Option D:

xml

HR Skills

NON-HR Skills

Analysis:

Correctly uses with test attributes, aligning with the question’s requirement.

The contains() function properly checks if "HR" is a substring within wd:Job_Skills (e.g., "HR Manager" or "Senior HR" returns true).

not(contains()) ensures the opposite condition, covering all cases (mutually exclusive).

outputs the exact strings "HR Skills" or "NON-HR Skills" as required.

Note: The closing tag is a typo in the option (should be ), but in context, it’s an obvious formatting error, not a substantive issue.

Verdict: Correct logic and syntax, making D the best answer.

Correct Implementation in Context:

xml

HR Skills

NON-HR Skills

Example Input: Senior HR Analyst ? Output: HR Skills

Example Input: IT Specialist ? Output: NON-HR Skills

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: "Configure Integration System - TRANSFORMATION" section, detailing and contains() for conditional XSLT logic in Workday.

Workday Documentation: "XSLT Transformations in Workday" under EIB, confirming wd: namespace usage and string functions.

W3C XSLT 1.0 Specification: Section 9.1, "Conditional Processing with ," and Section 11.2, "String Functions" (contains()).

Workday Community: Examples of substring-based conditionals in XSLT for report transformations.

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 where the wd:type attribute equals "Job_Profile_ID." The root template of your XSLT matches on and applies templates 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 is , which contains multiple elements, each with a wd:type attribute:

1740d3eca2f2ed9b6174ca7d2ae88c8c

Senior_Benefits_Analyst

The task is to select the value of the element where wd:type="Job_Profile_ID" (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 the specific element with the wd:type attribute value "Job_Profile_ID."

Analysis of Options

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

Option A: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'

This XPath attempts to navigate from wd:Job_Profile_Reference to wd:ID, then to wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'. However, there are several issues:

wd:type='Job_Profile_ID' is not valid XPath syntax. In XPath, to filter based on an attribute value, you use the attribute selector [@attribute='value'], not a direct comparison like wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'.

wd:type is an attribute of , not a child element or node. This syntax would not select the element itself but would be interpreted as trying to match a nonexistent child node or property, resulting in an error or no match.

This option is incorrect because it misuses XPath syntax for attribute filtering.

Option B: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'

This XPath navigates to wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID and then selects the @wd:type attribute, comparing it to "Job_Profile_ID" with =@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'. However:

The =@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID' syntax is invalid in XPath. To filter based on an attribute value, you use [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] as a predicate, not an equality comparison in this form.

This XPath would select the wd:type attribute itself (e.g., the string "Job_Profile_ID"), not the value of the element. Since expects a node or element value, selecting an attribute directly would not yield the desired "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" value.

This option is incorrect due to the invalid syntax and inappropriate selection of the attribute instead of the element value.

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

This XPath navigates from wd:Job_Profile_Reference to wd:ID and uses the predicate [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] to filter for elements where the wd:type attribute equals "Job_Profile_ID."

In the XML, contains:

1740d3eca2f2ed9b6174ca7d2ae88c8c

Senior_Benefits_Analyst

The predicate [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] selects the second element, whose value is "Senior_Benefits_Analyst."

Since the template matches , and is a direct child of , this path is correct:

? ? .

When used with , it outputs "Senior_Benefits_Analyst," fulfilling the requirement.

This option is correct because it uses proper XPath syntax for attribute-based filtering and selects the desired value.

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

This XPath is similar to Option C but includes an extra forward slash before the predicate: wd:ID/[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']. In XPath, predicates like [@attribute='value'] are used directly after the node name (e.g., wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']), not separated by a slash. The extra slash is syntactically incorrect and would result in an error or no match, as it implies navigating to a child node that doesn’t exist.

This option is incorrect due to the invalid syntax.

Why Option C is Correct

Option C, wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'], is the correct XPath syntax because:

It starts from the context node (as the template matches this element) and navigates to , using the predicate [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] to filter for the element with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID".

It correctly selects the value "Senior_Benefits_Analyst," which is the content of the element where wd:type="Job_Profile_ID".

It uses standard XPath syntax for attribute-based filtering, aligning with Workday’s XSLT implementation for web service responses.

When used with , it outputs the required value, fulfilling the question’s requirement.

Practical Example in XSLT

Here’s how this might look in your XSLT:

This would output "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" for the element with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID" 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 containing elements with wd:type attributes, and the guide emphasizes using predicates like [@wd:type='value'] to filter based on attributes. This is a standard practice for navigating Workday web service responses.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References

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

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

Section: XPath Syntax – Explains how to use predicates like [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] for attribute-based filtering in Workday XSLT.

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

Option C is the verified answer, as it correctly selects the value with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID" using the appropriate XPath syntax within the template context.

Key Points:

The correct approach is adjusting the connector's filename launch parameter, which allows setting a static filename and meeting the vendor's requirement of no longer needing unique filenames.

This method ensures that the filename sequence generator is bypassed without disrupting the integration process.

Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

In Workday Pro Integrations, filename sequence generators are commonly used to generate unique filenames to avoid overwrites in integrations. However, when a vendor no longer requires unique filenames, modifications must be made to use a fixed filename instead.

Why Option D?

Adjusting the connector’s filename launch parameter lets you set a static filename at runtime, effectively overriding any sequence generator settings.

Unlike deleting the sequence generator (which could cause errors), this method ensures smooth execution of the integration with a fixed filename.

This aligns with Workday's best practices for integration configurations, particularly in External Integration Business (EIB) and other Workday connector integrations.

Steps to Implement:

Access the integration’s configuration in Workday.

Locate the filename launch parameter for the connector.

Set it to a static value (e.g., "data.txt") to ensure consistent naming.

Supporting Documentation:

Workday documentation on integration configurations, particularly for EIB systems, confirms that filename settings can be adjusted via launch parameters.

The "Get_Sequence_Generators Operation Details" in Workday API documentation supports modifying filename configurations through launch parameters?.

In XSLT, the processor applies transformation rules by matching nodes using XPath expressions inside statements.

“Templates define the rule, and XPath expressions determine which nodes they apply to.”

This is the foundational mechanism by which XSLT processes XML data.

Why the others are incorrect:

B. The element defines scope, not node matching.

C. invokes a named template but does not itself match nodes.

D. Namespace prefixes are used within XPath, but node matching is based on XPath.

The Test Security Related Action shows Available by User = No when the security group running the integration lacks View permissions to the fields used in the override logic.

From Workday documentation:

Field Overrides require the ISSG to have View access to the domain policies securing each field referenced in the override, otherwise Workday blocks the field from execution.

Therefore, the appropriate fix is to:

• Identify the domains that secure the calculated fields and overridden fields

• Grant the ISSG View access in those domain security policies

• Activate pending changes

Options B and C incorrectly focus only on web service operations.

Option D incorrectly suggests Modify access — but View is the required minimum.

The Document Transformation Connector is used in Workday to process and reformat XML outputs — often from Core Connector or EIB integrations — into custom formats like CSV, JSON, or flattened XML.

“The primary role of the Document Transformation Connector is to apply XSLT-based formatting, data reorganization, and validation to the output of Workday integrations before delivery to downstream systems.”

This is especially useful when third-party vendors require a specific format not natively supported by the integration system.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Managing business processes is not a DT Connector’s function.

B. Calculations are not the main purpose — that’s more for Calculated Fields or Studio.

D. While security is essential, secure connections are managed through Workday’s integration system and transport configuration, not the DT connector.

When creating an outbound connector using the Workday Core Connector: Organization Outbound template, you need to configure the connector to meet specific vendor requirements, such as formatting output data and adjusting document retention policies. Let's break down the question and analyze the requirements and options based on Workday's integration framework, specifically focusing on the Core Connector and its configuration tasks.

Understanding the Requirements

Output Data Formatting:The vendor has provided a table specifying how organization types should appear in the output file (e.g., Cost Center as "CC", Pay Group as "PAY", Supervisory as "S", and any other value as "OTHER"). This indicates a need to transform or map Workday organization data into specific output values, which is typically handled by configuring how fields are processed or mapped in the integration.

Document Retention Policy Change:The vendor wants to change the default document retention policy from 30 days to 7 days. In Workday, document retention policies for integrations (e.g., files stored on SFTP or other delivery methods) are managed through integration settings, specifically attributes related to file retention or delivery options.

Analyzing Workday Core Connector: Organization Outbound

The Core Connector: Organization Outbound template is a pre-built Workday integration template used to extract organization-related data (e.g., cost centers, pay groups, supervisory organizations) and send it to an external system. It leverages Workday's integration framework, including integration maps, field overrides, and attributes, to customize data output and behavior.

Integration Maps: Used to define how data is transformed or mapped from Workday to the output format, often involving XSLT or predefined mappings.

Integration Field Overrides: Allow you to override or customize how specific fields are displayed or formatted in the output, such as mapping "Cost Center" to "CC" as per the vendor's table.

Integration Attributes: Control broader integration settings, such as delivery methods, file formats, and retention policies (e.g., document retention duration).

Integration Field Attributes: Typically focus on specific field-level properties but are less commonly used for retention policies or broad mappings compared to the above options.

Evaluating the Vendor's Output Requirements

The table provided (Cost Center ? "CC", Pay Group ? "PAY", Supervisory ? "S", any other value ? "OTHER") suggests a need to transform or override the default output values for organization types. This is a field-level customization, best handled by Integration Field Overrides, which allow you to specify custom values or formats for specific fields in the output.

For example, in the Core Connector, you can use Integration Field Overrides to map the Workday organization type (e.g., "Cost_Center") to the vendor's desired output ("CC"). This is a common practice for outbound integrations where external systems require specific formatting.

Evaluating the Retention Policy Change

The default document retention policy of 30 days needs to be changed to 7 days. In Workday, retention policies for integration output files (e.g., files delivered via SFTP or email) are configured as part of the integration's attributes, not field-level settings.

Integration Attributes are used to manage integration-wide settings, including delivery options, file retention periods, and other global configurations. You can specify the retention period (e.g., 7 days) in the attributes section of the Core Connector configuration.

This is distinct from field-level overrides or maps, as retention is not tied to individual data fields but to the integration's output management.

Analyzing the Options

Now, let's evaluate each option to determine which tasks are needed to meet both requirements:

A. Configure Integration Maps and Configure Integration Attributes

Integration Maps: These are used for broader data transformations or mappings, such as converting Workday XML to another format or defining complex data relationships. While they could theoretically handle the output value mappings (e.g., Cost Center ? "CC"), they are typically more complex and less granular than field overrides for simple value changes.

Integration Attributes: Correct for configuring the retention policy (e.g., changing from 30 to 7 days), as attributes manage integration-wide settings like retention.

Why Not Sufficient?: Integration Maps are overkill for simple field value overrides like the vendor's table, and field-level customization is better handled by Integration Field Overrides for precision and ease.

B. Configure Integration Field Overrides and Configure Integration Field Attributes

Integration Field Overrides: Correct for mapping specific field values (e.g., Cost Center ? "CC"), as they allow granular control over output formats for individual fields.

Integration Field Attributes: These are less commonly used and typically focus on field-specific properties (e.g., data type, length), not broad integration settings like retention policies. Retention is not managed at the field level, so this is incorrect for the retention requirement.

Why Not Sufficient?: Integration Field Attributes do not handle retention policies, making this option incomplete.

C. Configure Integration Field Overrides and Configure Integration Attributes

Integration Field Overrides: Perfect for mapping the vendor's output values (e.g., Cost Center ? "CC", Pay Group ? "PAY", etc.), as they allow precise control over field-level output formatting.

Integration Attributes: Correct for configuring the retention policy (e.g., changing from 30 to 7 days), as attributes manage integration-wide settings like file retention.

Why Sufficient?: This combination addresses both requirements—field-level output formatting and integration-wide retention policy changes—making it the most accurate choice.

D. Configure Integration Maps and Configure Integration Field Attributes

Integration Maps: As explained, these are better for complex transformations, not simple field value overrides like the vendor's table. They could work but are less efficient than field overrides.

Integration Field Attributes: As noted, these do not handle retention policies or broad integration settings, making them incorrect for the retention requirement.

Why Not Sufficient?: This combination fails to address retention effectively and uses Integration Maps when Integration Field Overrides would be more appropriate for the output formatting.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis, the vendor's requirements for output formatting (mapping organization types to specific values) and changing the retention policy (from 30 to 7 days) are best met by:

Integration Field Overrides: To customize the output values for organization types (e.g., Cost Center ? "CC") as shown in the table.

Integration Attributes: To adjust the document retention policy from 30 days to 7 days.