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

Explanation

Correct Answer: Search Anypoint exchange for a suitable existing fallback API, and then implement invocations to this fallback API in addition to the order API

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

>> It is not ideal and good approach, until unless there is a pre-approved agreement with the API clients that they will receive a HTTP 3xx temporary redirect status code and they have to implement fallback logic their side to call another API.

>> Creating separate entry of same Order API in API manager would just create an another instance of it on top of same API implementation. So, it does NO GOOD by using clone od same API as a fallback API. Fallback API should be ideally a different API implementation that is not same as primary one.

>> There is NO option currently provided by Anypoint HTTP Connector that allows us to invoke a fallback API when we receive certain HTTP status codes in response.

The only statement TRUE in the given options is to Search Anypoint exchange for a suitable existing fallback API, and then implement invocations to this fallback API in addition to the order API.

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: Data on past API invocations to help identify anomalies and usage patterns across various APIs

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

API Invocation metrics provided by Anypoint Platform:

>> Does NOT provide any Return Of Investment (ROI) related information. So the option suggesting it is OUT.

>> Does NOT provide any information w.r.t how APIs are reused, whether there is effective usage of APIs or not etc...

>> Does NOT prodive any prediction information as such to help us proactively identify any future policy violations.

So, the kind of data/information we can get from such metrics is on past API invocations to help identify anomalies and usage patterns across various APIs.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Use a combination of CloudHub-deployed and manually provisioned on-premises Mule runtimes managed by the MuleSoft-hosted Platform control plane.

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

Key details to be taken from the given scenario:

>> Organization uses BOTH cloud-based and on-premises systems

>> On-premises systems can only be accessed from within the organization's intranet

Let us evaluate the given choices based on above key details:

>> CloudHub-deployed Mule runtimes can ONLY be controlled using MuleSoft-hosted control plane. We CANNOT use Private Cloud Edition's control plane to control CloudHub Mule Runtimes. So, option suggesting this is INVALID

>> Using CloudHub-deployed Mule runtimes in the shared worker cloud managed by the MuleSoft-hosted Anypoint Platform is completely IRRELEVANT to given scenario and silly choice. So, option suggesting this is INVALID

>> Using an on-premises installation of Mule runtimes that are completely isolated with NO external network access, managed by the Anypoint Platform Private Cloud Edition control plane would work for On-premises integrations. However, with NO external access, integrations cannot be done to SaaS-based apps. Moreover CloudHub-hosted apps are best-fit for integrating with SaaS-based applications. So, option suggesting this is BEST WAY.

The best way to configure and use Anypoint Platform to support these mixed/hybrid integrations is to use a combination of CloudHub-deployed and manually provisioned on-premises Mule runtimes managed by the MuleSoft-hosted Platform control plane.

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

Correct Answer: Persistent Object Store

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

>> Redis distributed cache is performant but NOT out-of-the-box solution in Anypoint Platform

>> File-storage is neither performant nor out-of-the-box solution in Anypoint Platform

>> java.util.WeakHashMap needs a completely custom implementation of cache from scratch using Java code and is limited to the JVM where it is running. Which means the state in the cache is not worker aware when running on multiple workers. This type of cache is local to the worker. So, this is neither out-of-the-box nor worker-aware among multiple workers on cloudhub.

>> Persistent Object Store is an out-of-the-box solution provided by Anypoint Platform which is performant as well as worker aware among multiple workers running on CloudHub.

So, Persistent Object Store is the right answer.

Explanation

Correct Answer: An SLA for the upstream API CANNOT be provided.

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

>> First thing first, the default HTTP response timeout for HTTP connector is 10000 ms (10 seconds). NOT 500 ms.

>> Mule runtime does NOT apply any such "load-dependent" timeouts. There is no such behavior currently in Mule.

>> As there is default 10000 ms time out for HTTP connector, we CANNOT always guarantee that the invocation of the downstream API will run to completion without timing out due to its unreliable SLA times. If the response time crosses 10 seconds then the request may time out.

The main impact due to this is that a proper SLA for the upstream API CANNOT be provided.

Explanation

Correct Answer: 8082

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

>> 8091 and 8092 ports are to be used when keeping your HTTP and HTTPS app private to the LOCAL VPC respectively.

>> Above TWO ports are not for Shared AWS VPC/ Shared Worker Cloud.

>> 8081 is to be used when exposing your HTTP endpoint app to the internet through Shared LB

>> 8082 is to be used when exposing your HTTPS endpoint app to the internet through Shared LB

So, API invocations should be sent to port 8082 when calling this HTTPS based app.

References:

Explanation

Correct Answer: Approve the client application request for the chosen SLA tier

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

>> Only approving the client application request for the chosen SLA tier can be automated

>> Rest of the provided options are not valid

Explanation

Correct Answer: Use a horizontal CloudHub autoscaling policy that triggers on CPU utilization greater than 70%

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

The scenario in the question is very clearly stating that the usual traffic in the year is pretty well handled by the existing worker configuration with CPU running well below 70%. The problem occurs only "sometimes" occasionally when there is spike in the number of orders coming in.

So, based on above, We neither need to permanently increase the size of each worker nor need to permanently increase the number of workers. This is unnecessary as other than those "occasional" times the resources are idle and wasted.

We have two options left now. Either to use horizontal Cloudhub autoscaling policy to automatically increase the number of workers or to use vertical Cloudhub autoscaling policy to automatically increase the vCore size of each worker.

Here, we need to take two things into consideration:

1. CPU

2. Order Submission Rate to JMS Queue

>> From CPU perspective, both the options (horizontal and vertical scaling) solves the issue. Both helps to bring down the usage below 90%.

>> However, If we go with Vertical Scaling, then from Order Submission Rate perspective, as the application is still being load balanced with two workers only, there may not be much improvement in the incoming request processing rate and order submission rate to JMS queue. The throughput would be same as before. Only CPU utilization comes down.

>> But, if we go with Horizontal Scaling, it will spawn new workers and adds extra hand to increase the throughput as more workers are being load balanced now. This way we can address both CPU and Order Submission rate.

Hence, Horizontal CloudHub Autoscaling policy is the right and best answer.

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: 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.

Explanation

Correct Answer: They provide an additional layer of resilience on top of the underlying backend system, thereby insulating clients from extended failure of these systems.

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

In API-led connectivity,

>> Experience APIs - allow for innovation at the user interface level by consuming the underlying assets without being aware of how data is being extracted from backend systems.

>> Process APIs - compose data from various sources and combine them with orchestration logic to create higher level value

>> System APIs - reduce the dependency on the underlying backend systems by helping unlock data from backend systems in a reusable and consumable way.

However, they NEVER promise that they provide an additional layer of resilience on top of the underlying backend system, thereby insulating clients from extended failure of these systems.

Explanation

Correct Answer: When development is already organized into several independent initiatives or groups

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

>> It would require lot of process effort in an organization to have a single C4E team coordinating with multiple already organized development teams which are into several independent initiatives. A single C4E works well with different teams having at least a common initiative. So, in this scenario, federated C4E works well instead of centralized C4E.

Explanation

Correct Answers: API Design and Development and API Runtime Execution and Hosting

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

>> 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: API Operations and Management and 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

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:

ept

Explanation

Correct Answer: When the response time of API invocations exceeds a threshold

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

>> Alerts can be setup for all the given options using the default Anypoint Platform functionality

>> However, the question insists on an alert whose conditions depend on the end-to-end request processing of the API implementation.

>> Alert w.r.t "Response Times" is the only one which requires end-to-end request processing of API implementation in order to determine if the threshold is exceeded or not.

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: To invoke OAuth 2.0-protected APIs managed by Anypoint Platform, API clients must submit access tokens issued by that same Identity Provider

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

>> It is NOT necessary that single sign-on is required to sign in to Anypoint Platform because we are using an external Identity Provider for Client Management

>> It is NOT necessary that all APIs managed by Anypoint Platform must be protected by SAML 2.0 policies because we are using an external Identity Provider for Client Management

>> Not TRUE that the application network must include System APIs that interact with the Identity Provider because we are using an external Identity Provider for Client Management

Only TRUE statement in the given options is - "To invoke OAuth 2.0-protected APIs managed by Anypoint Platform, API clients must submit access tokens issued by that same Identity Provider"

References:

Explanation

Correct Answer: Manually provisioned customer-hosted runtime plane and customer-hosted control plane

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

There are two key factors that are to be taken into consideration from the scenario given in the question.

>> Company requires both data and metadata to be resided within the corporate firewall

>> Company would like to go with customer-hosted infrastructure.

Any deployment model that is to deal with the cloud directly or indirectly (Mulesoft-hosted or Customer's own cloud like Azure, AWS) will have to share atleast the metadata.

Application data can be controlled inside firewall by having Mule Runtimes on customer hosted runtime plane. But if we go with Mulsoft-hosted/ Cloud-based control plane, the control plane required atleast some minimum level of metadata to be sent outside the corporate firewall.

As the customer requirement is pretty clear about the data and metadata both to be within the corporate firewall, even though customer wants to move to production as quickly as possible, unfortunately due to the nature of their security requirements, they have no other option but to go with manually provisioned customer-hosted runtime plane and customer-hosted control plane.

Explanation

Correct Answer: The client ID and secret obtained from Anypoint Exchange for the API instance in the STAGING environment

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

>> We CANNOT use the client ID and secret of Anypoint Platform account or any individual environments for accessing the APIs

>> As the type of policy that is enforced on the API in question is "Client ID Enforcment Policy", OAuth token based access won't work.

Right way to access the API is to use the client ID and secret obtained from Anypoint Exchange for the API instance in a particular environment we want to work on.

References:

Managing API instance Contracts on API Manager

nt-id-based-policies

Explanation

Correct Answer: The visibility level of the API instances of that API that need to be publicly accessible should be set to public visibility.

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

Explanation

Correct Answer: Convince the development team of the product API to adopt the API data model of the Order API such that integration logic of the Order API can work with one consistent internal data model

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

Key details to note from the given scenario:

>> Power relationship between Order API and Product API is customer/supplier

So, as per below rules of "Power Relationships", the caller (in this case Order API) would request for features to the called (Product API team) and the Product API team would need to accomodate those requests.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Option A

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

>> Anypoint API Manager and API policies are applicable to all types of HTTP/1.x APIs.

>> They are not applicable to WebSocket APIs, HTTP/2 APIs and gRPC APIs

Explanation

Correct Answer: Bundle properties files for each environment into the Mule API implementation's deployable archive, then promote the Mule API implementation to the Production environment using Anypoint CLI or the Anypoint Platform REST APIs

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

>> Anypoint Exchange is for asset discovery and documentation. It has got no provision to modify the properties of Mule API implementations at all.

>> API Manager is for managing API instances, their contracts, policies and SLAs. It has also got no provision to modify the properties of API implementations.

>> API policies are to address Non-functional requirements of APIs and has again got no provision to modify the properties of API implementations.

So, the right way and recommended way to do this as part of development practice is to bundle properties files for each environment into the Mule API implementation and just point and refer to respective file per environment.

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.