Salesforce MuleSoft-Platform-Architect-I Salesforce Certified MuleSoft Platform Architect 1 Exam (SU24) Exam Practice Test

Explanation

Correct Answer: Unit tests (Whitebox)

*****************************************

Explanation

Correct Answer: The credentials provided by the IdP for identity management

*****************************************

Explanation

Correct Answer: Drive consumption as much as production of assets; this enables developers to discover and reuse assets from other projects and encourages standardization

*****************************************

>> The main motto of the new IT Operating Model that MuleSoft recommends and made popular is to change the way that they are delivered from a production model to a production + consumption model, which is done through an API strategy called API-led connectivity.

>> The assets built should also be discoverable and self-serveable for reusablity across LOBs and organization.

>> MuleSoft's IT operating model does not talk about SDLC model (Agile/ Lean etc) or MDM at all. So, options suggesting these are not valid.

References:

https://blogs.mulesoft.com/biz/connectivity/what-is-a-center-for-enablement-c4e/

https://www.mulesoft.com/resources/api/secret-to-managing-it-projects

Explanation

Correct Answer:

1. App Developers owns and focuses on Experience Layer APIs

2. LOB IT owns and focuses on Process Layer APIs

3. Central IT owns and focuses on System Layer APIs

References:

https://blogs.mulesoft.com/biz/api/experience-api-ownership/

https://blogs.mulesoft.com/biz/api/process-api-ownership/

https://blogs.mulesoft.com/biz/api/system-api-ownership/

Explanation

Correct Answer: Guarding against Denial of Service attacks

*****************************************

>> Backend system overloading can be handled by enforcing "Spike Control Policy"

>> Logging HTTP requests and responses can be done by enforcing "Message Logging Policy"

>> Credentials can be tamper-proofed using "Security" and "Compliance" Policies

However, unfortunately, there is no proper way currently on Anypoint Platform to guard against DOS attacks.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Configure a “Worker not responding” alert in Anypoint Runtime Manager.

*****************************************

>> All the options eventually helps to generate the alert required when the application stops responding.

>> However, handling exceptions within calling API and then raising alert from API client is inappropriate and silly. There could be many API clients invoking the API implementation and it is not ideal to have this setup consistently in all of them. Not a realistic way to do.

>> Implementing a health check/ heartbeat with in the API and calling from outside to detmine the health sounds OK but needs extra setup for it and same time there are very good chances of generating false alarms when there are any intermittent network issues between external tool calling the health check API on API implementation. The API implementation itself may not have any issues but due to some other factors some false alarms may go out.

>> Creating an alert in API Manager when the API receives no requests within a specified time period would actually generate realistic alerts but even here some false alarms may go out when there are genuinely no requests from API clients.

The best and right way to achieve this requirement is to setup an alert on Runtime Manager with a condition "Worker not responding". This would generate an alert AS SOON AS the workers become unresponsive.

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Explanation

Correct Answer: It makes API Manager aware of API implementations and hence enables it to enforce policies.

*****************************************

>> API Autodiscovery is a mechanism that manages an API from API Manager by pairing the deployed application to an API created on the platform.

>> API Management includes tracking, enforcing policies if you apply any, and reporting API analytics.

>> Critical to the Autodiscovery process is identifying the API by providing the API name and version.

References:

https://docs.mulesoft.com/api-manager/2.x/api-auto-discovery-new-concept

https://docs.mulesoft.com/api-manager/1.x/api-auto-discovery

https://docs.mulesoft.com/api-manager/2.x/api-auto-discovery-new-conc ept

Explanation

Correct Answer: Apply a basic authentication - LDAP policy; the internal Active Directory will be configured as the LDAP source for authenticating users.

*****************************************

>> IP Whitelisting does NOT fit for this purpose. Moreover, the users workstations may not necessarily have static IPs in the network.

>> OAuth 2.0 enforcement requires a client provider which isn't in the organizations system components.

>> It is not an effective approach to let every user create separate client credentials and configure those for their usage.

The effective way it to apply a basic authentication - LDAP policy and the internal Active Directory will be configured as the LDAP source for authenticating users.

Explanation

Correct Answer: XML over HTTP

*****************************************

>> API-led connectivity and Application Networks urge to have the APIs on HTTP based protocols for building most effective APIs and networks on top of them.

>> The HTTP based APIs allow the platform to apply various varities of policies to address many NFRs

>> The HTTP based APIs also allow to implement many standard and effective implementation patterns that adhere to HTTP based w3c rules.

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Explanation

Correct Answer: Apply a JSON threat protection policy to all APIs to detect potential threat vectors

*****************************************

>> Usually, if the APIs are designed and developed for specific consumers (known consumers/customers) then we would IP Whitelist the same to ensure that traffic only comes from them.

>> However, as this scenario states that the APIs are publicly available and being used by so many mobile and web applications, it is NOT possible to identify and blacklist all possible bad actors.

>> So, JSON threat protection policy is the best chance to prevent any bad JSON payloads from such bad actors.

Explanation

Correct Answer: When there is one CloudHub deployment of the API implementation to three CloudHub workers that must share the cache state.

*****************************************

Key details in the scenario:

>> Use the CloudHub Object Store via the Object Store connector

Considering above details:

>> CloudHub Object Stores have one-to-one relationship with CloudHub Mule Applications.

>> We CANNOT use an application's CloudHub Object Store to be shared among multiple Mule applications running in different Regions or Business Groups or Customer-hosted Mule Runtimes by using Object Store connector.

>> If it is really necessary and very badly needed, then Anypoint Platform supports a way by allowing access to CloudHub Object Store of another application using Object Store REST API. But NOT using Object Store connector.

So, the only scenario where we can use the CloudHub Object Store via the Object Store connector to persist the cache’s state is when there is one CloudHub deployment of the API implementation to multiple CloudHub workers that must share the cache state.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Build several Bounded Context Data Models that align with coherent parts of the business processes and the definitions of associated business entities.

*****************************************

>> The options w.r.t building API data models using XML schema/ Agile API-centric practices are irrelevant to the scenario given in the question. So these two are INVALID.

>> Building EDM (Enterprise Data Model) is not feasible or right fit for this scenario as the teams and LOBs work in silo and they all have different initiatives, budget etc.. Building EDM needs intensive coordination among all the team which evidently seems not possible in this scenario.

So, the right fit for this scenario is to build several Bounded Context Data Models that align with coherent parts of the business processes and the definitions of associated business entities.

Explanation

Correct Answer: The API consumer creates an API client, which sends API invocations to an API such that they are processed by an API implementation

*****************************************

Terminology:

>> API Client - It is a piece of code or program the is written to invoke an API

>> API Consumer - An owner/entity who owns the API Client. API Consumers write API clients.

>> API - The provider of the API functionality. Typically an API Instance on API Manager where they are managed and operated.

>> API Implementation - The actual piece of code written by API provider where the functionality of the API is implemented. Typically, these are Mule Applications running on Runtime Manager.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Increase the size of the CloudHub worker(s)

*****************************************

The key details that we can take out from the given scenario are:

>> API implementation uses a database bulk insert command to submit all the purchase data to a database

>> JDBC driver processes the data into a set of several temporary disk files on the CloudHub worker

>> Sometimes a request fails and the logs show a message indicating an out-of-file-space message

Based on above details:

>> Both auto-scaling options does NOT help because we cannot set auto-scaling rules based on error messages. Auto-scaling rules are kicked-off based on CPU/Memory usages and not due to some given error or disk space issues.

>> Increasing the number of CloudHub workers also does NOT help here because the reason for the failure is not due to performance aspects w.r.t CPU or Memory. It is due to disk-space.

>> Moreover, the API is doing bulk insert to submit the received batch data. Which means, all data is handled by ONE worker only at a time. So, the disk space issue should be tackled on "per worker" basis. Having multiple workers does not help as the batch may still fail on any worker when disk is out of space on that particular worker.

Therefore, the right way to deal this issue and resolve this is to increase the vCore size of the worker so that a new worker with more disk space will be provisioned.

Explanation

Correct Answer: A higher number of discoverable API-related assets in the application network.

*****************************************

>> We do NOT get faster response times in fine-grained approach when compared to coarse-grained approach.

>> In fact, we get faster response times from a network having coarse-grained APIs compared to a network having fine-grained APIs model. The reasons are below.

Fine-grained approach:

1. will have more APIs compared to coarse-grained

2. So, more orchestration needs to be done to achieve a functionality in business process.

3. Which means, lots of API calls to be made. So, more connections will needs to be established. So, obviously more hops, more network i/o, more number of integration points compared to coarse-grained approach where fewer APIs with bulk functionality embedded in them.

4. That is why, because of all these extra hops and added latencies, fine-grained approach will have bit more response times compared to coarse-grained.

5. Not only added latencies and connections, there will be more resources used up in fine-grained approach due to more number of APIs.

That's why, fine-grained APIs are good in a way to expose more number of resuable assets in your network and make them discoverable. However, needs more maintenance, taking care of integration points, connections, resources with a little compromise w.r.t network hops and response times.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Create a bounded-context model for the system layer to closely match the backend data model, and add an anti-corruption layer to let the different bounded contexts cooperate across the system and process layers

*****************************************

>> Canonical models are not an option here as the organization has already put in efforts and created bounded-context models for Experience and Process APIs.

>> Anti-corruption layers for ALL APIs is unnecessary and invalid because it is mentioned that experience and process APIs share same bounded-context model. It is just the System layer APIs that need to choose their approach now.

>> So, having an anti-corruption layer just between the process and system layers will work well. Also to speed up the approach, system APIs can mimic the backend system data model.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Traffic between Mule applications deployed to an Anypoint VPC and on-premises systems can stay within a private network

*****************************************

>> The private IP address range of an Anypoint VPC is NOT automatically chosen by CloudHub. It is chosen by us at the time of creating VPC using thr CIDR blocks.

CIDR Block: The size of the Anypoint VPC in Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) notation.

For example, if you set it to 10.111.0.0/24, the Anypoint VPC is granted 256 IP addresses from 10.111.0.0 to 10.111.0.255.

Ideally, the CIDR Blocks you choose for the Anypoint VPC come from a private IP space, and should not overlap with any other Anypoint VPC’s CIDR Blocks, or any CIDR Blocks in use in your corporate network.

that each CloudHub environment requires a separate Anypoint VPC. Once an Anypoint VPC is created, we can choose a same VPC by multiple environments. However, it is generally a best and recommended practice to always have seperate Anypoint VPCs for Non-Prod and Prod environments.

>> We use Anypoint VPN to link the underlying AWS VPC to an on-premises (non AWS) private network. NOT VPC Peering.

Explanation

Correct Answer: System Layer

The APIs used in an API-led approach to connectivity fall into three categories:

System APIs – these usually access the core systems of record and provide a means of insulating the user from the complexity or any changes to the underlying systems. Once built, many users, can access data without any need to learn the underlying systems and can reuse these APIs in multiple projects.

Process APIs – These APIs interact with and shape data within a single system or across systems (breaking down data silos) and are created here without a dependence on the source systems from which that data originates, as well as the target channels through which that data is delivered.

Experience APIs – Experience APIs are the means by which data can be reconfigured so that it is most easily consumed by its intended audience, all from a common data source, rather than setting up separate point-to-point integrations for each channel. An Experience API is usually created with API-first design principles where the API is designed for the specific user experience in mind.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment; add timeout and retry logic to the process API to avoid intermittent failures; if it still fails, invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment

*****************************************

There is one important consideration to be noted in the question which is - System API in DR environment provides only 20% of the rate limiting offered by the primary environment. So, comparitively, very less calls will be allowed into the DR environment API opposed to its primary environment. With this in mind, lets analyse what is the right and best fault-tolerant invocation strategy.

1. Invoking both the system APIs in parallel is definitely NOT a feasible approach because of the 20% limitation we have on DR environment. Calling in parallel every time would easily and quickly exhaust the rate limits on DR environment and may not give chance to genuine intermittent error scenarios to let in during the time of need.

2. Another option given is suggesting to add timeout and retry logic to process API while invoking primary environment's system API. This is good so far. However, when all retries failed, the option is suggesting to invoke the copy of process API on DR environment which is not right or recommended. Only system API is the one to be considered for fallback and not the whole process API. Process APIs usually have lot of heavy orchestration calling many other APIs which we do not want to repeat again by calling DR's process API. So this option is NOT right.

3. One more option given is suggesting to add the retry (no timeout) logic to process API to directly retry on DR environment's system API instead of retrying the primary environment system API first. This is not at all a proper fallback. A proper fallback should occur only after all retries are performed and exhausted on Primary environment first. But here, the option is suggesting to directly retry fallback API on first failure itself without trying main API. So, this option is NOT right too.

This leaves us one option which is right and best fit.

- Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment

- Add Timeout and Retry logic on it in process API

- If it fails even after all retries, then invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Allow System APIs to return data that is NOT currently required by the identified Process or Experience APIs.

*****************************************

>> All customizations for the end-user application should be handled in "Experience API" only. Not in Process API

>> We should use tiered approach but NOT always by creating exactly one API for each of the 3 layers. Experience APIs might be one but Process APIs and System APIs are often more than one. System APIs for sure will be more than one all the time as they are the smallest modular APIs built in front of end systems.

>> Process APIs can call System APIs as well as other Process APIs. There is no such anti-design pattern in API-Led connectivity saying Process APIs should not call other Process APIs.

So, the right answer in the given set of options that makes sense as per API-Led connectivity principles is to allow System APIs to return data that is NOT currently required by the identified Process or Experience APIs. This way, some future Process APIs can make use of that data from System APIs and we need NOT touch the System layer APIs again and again.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Set a timeout of 100ms; that leaves 400ms for other two downstream APIs to complete

*****************************************

Key details to take from the given scenario:

>> Upstream API's designed SLA is 500ms (median). Lets ignore maximum SLA response times.

>> This API calls 3 downstream APIs sequentially and all these are of similar complexity.

>> The first downstream API is offering median SLA of 100ms, 80th percentile: 500ms; 95th percentile: 1000ms.

Based on the above details:

>> We can rule out the option which is suggesting to set 50ms timeout. Because, if the median SLA itself being offered is 100ms then most of the calls are going to timeout and time gets wasted in retried them and eventually gets exhausted with all retries. Even if some retries gets successful, the remaining time wont leave enough room for 2nd and 3rd downstream APIs to respond within time.

>> The option suggesting to NOT set a timeout as the invocation of this API is mandatory and so we must wait until it responds is silly. As not setting time out would go against the good implementation pattern and moreover if the first API is not responding within its offered median SLA 100ms then most probably it would either respond in 500ms (80th percentile) or 1000ms (95th percentile). In BOTH cases, getting a successful response from 1st downstream API does NO GOOD because already by this time the Upstream API SLA of 500 ms is breached. There is no time left to call 2nd and 3rd downstream APIs.

>> It is NOT true that no timeout is possible to meet the upstream APIs desired SLA.

As 1st downstream API is offering its median SLA of 100ms, it means MOST of the time we would get the responses within that time. So, setting a timeout of 100ms would be ideal for MOST calls as it leaves enough room of 400ms for remaining 2 downstream API calls.

Explanation

Correct Answer: API Consumer requests access to API >> API Client implementes logic to call an API >> API routes the request to >> API Implementation

*****************************************

>> API consumer does not implement any logic to invoke APIs. It is just a role. So, the option stating "API Consumer implementes logic to call an API" is INVALID.

>> API Implementation does not route any requests. It is a final piece of logic where functionality of target systems is exposed. So, the requests should be routed to the API implementation by some other entity. So, the options stating "API Implementation routes the request to >> API" is INVALID

>> The statements in one of the options are correct but sequence is wrong. The sequence is given as "API Client implementes logic to call an API >> API Consumer requests access to API >> API routes the request to >> API Implementation". Here, the statements in the options are VALID but sequence is WRONG.

>> Right option and sequence is the one where API consumer first requests access to API on Anypoint Exchange and obtains client credentials. API client then writes logic to call an API by using the access client credentials requested by API consumer and the requests will be routed to API implementation via the API which is managed by API Manager.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Implement required changes to the Process API implementation so that, whenever possible, the Process API’s RAML definition remains unchanged.

*****************************************

Key requirement in the question is:

>> Approach that minimizes the impact of this change on API clients

Based on above:

>> Updating the RAML definition would possibly impact the API clients if the changes require any thing mandatory from client side. So, one should try to avoid doing that until really necessary.

>> Implementing the changes as a completely different API and then redirectly the clients with 3xx status code is really upsetting design and heavily impacts the API clients.

>> Organisations and IT cannot simply postpone the changes required until all API consumers acknowledge they are ready to migrate to a new Process API or API version. This is unrealistic and not possible.

The best way to handle the changes always is to implement required changes to the API implementations so that, whenever possible, the API’s RAML definition remains unchanged.

Explanation

Correct Answer: SLA-based rate limiting

*****************************************

>> Client Id enforement policy is a "Compliance" related NFR and does not help in maintaining the "Quality of Service (QoS)". It CANNOT and NOT meant for protecting the backend systems from scalability challenges.

>> IP Whitelisting and OAuth 2.0 token enforcement are "Security" related NFRs and again does not help in maintaining the "Quality of Service (QoS)". They CANNOT and are NOT meant for protecting the backend systems from scalability challenges.

Rate Limiting, Rate Limiting-SLA, Throttling, Spike Control are the policies that are "Quality of Service (QOS)" related NFRs and are meant to help in protecting the backend systems from getting overloaded.

https://dzone.com/articles/how-to-secure-apis

Explanation

Correct Answer: API Design and Development, API Runtime Execution and Hosting, API Operations and Management, API Consumer Engagement

*****************************************

>> API Design and Development - Anypoint Studio, Anypoint Design Center, Anypoint Connectors

>> API Runtime Execution and Hosting - Mule Runtimes, CloudHub, Runtime Services

>> API Operations and Management - Anypoint API Manager, Anypoint Exchange

>> API Consumer Management - API Contracts, Public Portals, Anypoint Exchange, API Notebooks

Explanation

Correct Answers:

1. Each modern API must be treated like a product and designed for a particular target audience (for instance mobile app developers)

*****************************************

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Explanation

Correct Answer:

1. Decrease the IT delivery gap

2. Meet various business demands without increasing the IT capacity

3. Make consumption of assets at the rate of production.

*****************************************