Development-Lifecycle-and-Deployment-Architect Exam Dumps - Salesforce Certified Development Lifecycle and Deployment Architect (SU24)

 Creating design standards to require help text on all custom fields and custom objects is an option that an Architect should recommend, as it helps to provide context and guidance for the administrators and users on how the fields and objects are used and what they mean. Creating design standards to consistently use the description field on custom fields is also an option that an Architect should recommend, as it helps to document the purpose and function of the fields and make them easier to maintain and understand. Creating design standards to consistently use the description field on custom objects is not an option that an Architect should recommend, as it is not a mandatory field and may not provide enough information for the administrators. Creating design standards with a document to store all custom objects and custom fields is not an option that an Architect should recommend, as it may be difficult to keep the document updated and synchronized with the actual metadata in the org. Creating design standards to require all custom fields on all custom object page layouts is not an option that an Architect should recommend, as it may clutter the user interface and reduce the usability and performance of the application.

The development model that is optimized for this need is to use unlocked packages to deploy the global code and allow each country to create its customized unlocked package extensions. This model can help maintain the global standardization and consistency of the code, while also providing the flexibility and autonomy for each region to customize some aspects of the code for their specific needs. Unlocked packages are a type of second-generation packaging that can be created and installed using the Salesforce CLI or APIs, and can be upgraded or uninstalled as needed. Unlocked package extensions are a type of unlocked packages that can depend on and extend another unlocked package or a managed package. See Unlocked Packages for more details.

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

According to the [Salesforce Performance Testing Guide], performance tests must be run in a sandbox, a business justification must be provided to Salesforce, and performance tests may be run without advanced notice, but Salesforce will not store performance logs. Salesforce does not need to be informed 7 days before starting performance tests, and Salesforce will not monitor test activity to ensure there are no issues with Salesforce Services.

The problem is that UAT is on a preview release and SIT is not. A preview release is a version of Salesforce that contains the features and enhancements that will be available in the next major release. Preview releases are usually available a few weeks before the official release date, and they are assigned to a subset of instances. If UAT and SIT are on different instances, they may have different release versions, which can cause deployment issues. For example, if UAT has a preview release that contains some new metadata types that are not available in SIT, then deploying those metadata types from SIT to UAT will fail. To avoid this problem, the architect should check the Sandbox Preview Guide1 and the Release Notes2 to see if there are any changes that affect the deployment, and refresh and redeploy the sandboxes accordingly. There is a problem, and it is not expected behavior. Using the DX command line instead will not solve the problem, as it will still encounter the same version mismatch. SIT is not on a preview release and UAT is not, as that would not cause any deployment issues.

The best way to stop the rollbacks from happening is to ensure report metadata is exported daily and that it is merged into the developer branches before the next release. This way, the reports and dashboards will be up to date and consistent across all environments. Using a third-party data warehouse is not a solution, as it does not address the root cause of the rollbacks. Removing the executive’s ability to change reports is not a good practice, as it limits their flexibility and autonomy. Backing up and reimporting the reports before and after the release is not a reliable or scalable solution, as it can introduce errors and inconsistencies.

 Three advantages of using the SFDX are: can store code on a local machine, or a version control system; can create scratch orgs; and can install application metadata from a central repository. These advantages can help improve the development experience, as they allow developers to work with source-driven development, use ephemeral and configurable environments, and access metadata components from a shared location. Can quickly deploy metadata using Execute Anonymous is not an advantage of using the SFDX, as Execute Anonymous is a feature of the Developer Console that allows running Apex code, not deploying metadata. Can use native Deployment Rollback Tool to quickly revert to prior state is also not an advantage of using the SFDX, as there is no such tool in the SFDX. See [Salesforce DX] for more details.

 The best release strategy for creating a new report to support an urgent client request is to utilize the daily release process. The daily release process is designed for small and quick changes that do not require extensive testing or approval. The daily release process can create the report directly in a full sandbox and then deploy it to production. The major and minor release processes are more suitable for large and complex changes that require more testing and approval. The major and minor release processes should not create the report directly in production, as this may cause errors or conflicts.