Pass the Salesforce Developers PDII Questions and answers with Dumpstech

Compreh17ensive and Detailed 11850 to 250 words of Explanation:

To make an Apex method compatible with a Lightning Web Component's @wire service and ensure it follows security best practices, three specific modifications are required:

@AuraEnabled(Cacheable=true) (Option C): The @wire service in LWC requires the Apex method to be marked as cacheable. This enables client-side caching via the Lightning Data Service, which significantly improves UI performance by reducing redundant server calls. Note that Cacheable=true is mandatory for @wire but optional for imperative calls.

with sharing (Option B): In Apex, classes do not enforce sharing rules by default. To ensure the user only sees Leads they have access to according to the organization-wide defaults and sharing model, the class must explicitly use the with sharing keyword.

WITH SECURITY_ENFORCED (Option A): While with sharing handles record-level access, it does not automatically enforce field-level security (FLS) or object-level security (CRUD). Adding the WITH SECURITY_ENFORCED clause to the SOQL query ensures that if a user does not have permission to view the AnnualRevenue field, the query will throw an exception rather than exposing protected data.

Options D and E are incorrect because without sharing bypasses security, and a simple @AuraEnabled without cacheable=true is insufficient for the LWC @wire service.

A frequent mistake in Apex unit testing is failing to recognize that SObject variables in memory do not automatically reflect changes made to the database by triggers, flows, or other logic. When the developer saves the Account record in the test4, the database is updated (e.g., a trigger or the controller changes the OwnerId to the Queue ID). However, the variable used in the test still holds the original data that was present when it was first instantiated or inserted.

To successfully assert the change, the developer must perform a "refresh" query. This involves using a SOQL statement to retrieve the record from the database using its ID: Account updatedAcc = [SELECT OwnerId FROM Account WHERE Id = :acc.Id];. The assertion should then be performed against updatedAcc.OwnerId.

Option B correctly identifies this as the root cause. Option A is irrelevant as Queueable is an asynchronous execution pattern. Option C (seeAllData=true) is a poor practice and is not required for testing logic that modifies records. Option D is unrelated to assertion logic. Standard test isolation requires that you explicitly re-query the database to verify side effects caused by platform automation or controller logic.

==========

This requirement calls for "Transactional Atomicity," meaning either both database operations (Account creation and Contact creation) succeed, or neither is committed to the database. In Apex, each DML statement normally acts as its own individual transaction unless managed by Savepoints.

The correct approach is to use Database.setSavepoint() and Database.rollback() within a try-catch block (Option A). The developer sets a savepoint immediately before the Account is inserted. If the Account is created successfully but the subsequent Contact insertion fails (due to a validation rule, trigger error, or system exception), the code enters the catch block. Within the catch block, the developer executes Database.rollback(sp), which reverts the database to the state it was in before the Account was ever inserted.

Option B is technically similar but "A" provides the standard programmatic pattern name. Option C (allOrNone=false) only applies to a single list of records in one DML call and cannot link the success of an Account to a Contact. Option D (manual deletion) is an unreliable "cleanup" strategy that fails if the system crashes or if there are secondary side effects from the initial insertion. Using Savepoints ensures the platform handles the rollback safely and completely.

Salesforce enforces a strict architectural boundary regarding database transactions and external communications. When an Apex trigger executes, it is part of a synchronous database transaction. If the platform allowed a synchronous callout (a web service call) directly from a trigger, the database transaction—including all active record locks—would have to remain open while waiting for the external system to respond. This could lead to severe performance degradation and hit the "Concurrent Request" limit.

Consequently, calling a web service from an Apex trigger (Option C) must be handled asynchronously. A developer must hand off the callout logic to an @future(callout=true) method, a Queueable class, or a Platform Event. This allows the trigger to finish its work and commit the database transaction immediately, while the callout runs in its own separate background process with its own set of governor limits.

Option A is incorrect because a standard synchronous query can retrieve up to 50,000 records. Option B is incorrect because System.scheduleBatch is a synchronous call to initiate a process, even if the process itself runs later. Option D is incorrect because record updates can be handled synchronously in an after insert trigger context.

In Aura components, Salesforce provides specific interfaces that "inject" context into the component automatically. The developer is already using force:hasRecordId, which automatically populates a recordId attribute with the ID of the current record.

To get the API Name of the sObject (e.g., "Account" or "Contact") without writing Apex code or requiring manual configuration in the App Builder, the developer should implement force:hasSObjectName (Option D). When this interface is added to the implements attribute, the framework automatically provides an attribute named sObjectName to the component.

This is the most efficient solution because:

It is purely declarative and handled by the Lightning framework.

It requires zero Apex code, meaning there is no need for additional unit tests or code coverage (satisfying the requirement "without requiring additional test coverage").

It makes the component truly reusable; you can drop it on an Account page, a Contact page, or any custom object page, and it will immediately know which object it is currently displaying.

Options A and B require manual configuration or hardcoding, which reduces reusability. Option C requires an Apex call, which adds complexity and necessitates writing test classes for coverage.

When code behavior differs between two environments that theoretically share the same codebase, the root cause is often the underlying platform version. Salesforce releases updates (e.g., Spring, Summer, Winter) on a staggered schedule. Sandbox instances are frequently updated to the "Preview" version of the upcoming release weeks before the Production environment.

If a sandbox is on a newer release (Option C), it may include changes to the Apex compiler, new platform governor limits, or modifications to how standard objects behave. If a test relies on a specific behavior that changed in the new release, it might fail in the sandbox while still passing in the older Production environment.

Option A (SeeAllData=true) is a poor practice and would likely cause more issues rather than resolve them. Option B is unlikely because API versions are fixed in the metadata of the class and wouldn't change spontaneously. Option D relates to execution speed and resource contention but rarely causes a functional test to pass in one environment and fail in another unless there are significant race conditions. Checking the release version is the standard first step when diagnosing environment-specific discrepancies in the absence of code changes.

To write "generic" code in Apex—meaning code that can handle different types of objects (Accounts, Contacts, Custom Objects) interchangeably—the developer should use the base sObject class. All Salesforce objects inherit from this base class.

The sObject class provides a method called .get(fieldName) (Option C). This method allows you to retrieve the value of any field by passing its string name as an argument. By casting the input records (e.g., an Account and an Opportunity) to the generic sObject type, the developer can call .get('Name') on both and compare the returned objects (typically strings). This bypasses the need to know the specific object type at compile-time and avoids complex conditional logic.

Option A is incorrect because String.replace is for string manipulation, not data retrieval. Option B is incorrect because the Metadata API is for modifying org structure, not retrieving record field values. Option D is incorrect because Schema.describe provides information about the field's definition (type, label, length), but it does not provide the actual data value stored in a specific record. Using the generic sObject.get() method is the standard, most efficient way to achieve polymorphism in Apex data handling.

Comprehensive and Deta10iled 150 to 250 words of E11xplanation:

This error occurs because Salesforce prohibits making a callout (even a mock one) in the same transaction after a DML operation has been performed. When you insert test data, it creates a "pending" transaction in the database. If you then attempt to execute a callout immediately, the platform throws the CalloutException to prevent data inconsistency issues.

To resolve this in a test context, you must separate the DML operation from the callout using the Test.startTest() and Test.stopTest() methods. When Test.startTest() is called, Salesforce provides a fresh set of governor limits and effectively creates a new transaction context for the code that follows. By inserting the records before Test.startTest() and performing the logic that triggers the callout after Test.startTest(), the developer ensures that the DML operation is "committed" to the test database context before the callout is initiated.

Option C correctly identifies this pattern. Option B is incorrect because @testSetup is used for global data creation across all test methods and does not specifically address the callout transaction split. Options A and D do not solve the problem because they either keep the DML and callout in the same context or place the DML in a context where it would still interfere with the subsequent callout request.

==========

To make a Lightning Web Component (LWC) available for use in the Lightning App Builder, the developer must modify the component's configuration file (the .js-meta.xml file).

First, the isExposed tag must be set to true. By default, this is false, meaning the component is only available to other components within the namespace but not to the App Builder or Experience Builder. Setting it to true exposes it to the tools.

Second, the developer must specify where the component can be dragged and dropped by defining targets. Since the question states the component displays information about the "record in context," it implies the component is designed to live on a Record Page. Therefore, adding lightning__RecordPage is essential. While lightning__AppPage (Option D) is a valid target, the context of "record in context" strongly points to the Record Page target. There is no IsVisible attribute in the LWC configuration schema.

The requirement describes a standard vertical access pattern that is best handled by the Role Hierarchy (Option C).

In Salesforce, when the Organization-Wide Default (OWD) for an object (like Case) is set to Private, the Role Hierarchy provides the following functionality by default:

Managers see subordinates' data: Users placed higher in the hierarchy automatically gain access to records owned by or shared with users below them. By placing support managers at the top of the hierarchy, they will be able to see all cases owned by the agents.

Agents see restricted data: Agents will only see the records they own or those shared with them. The requirement that they see cases owned by "someone in their role or a subordinate role" is exactly how the hierarchy facilitates vertical data flow.

While Criteria-based sharing rules (Option D) could potentially share cases with managers, it would be much harder to manage the "subordinate" logic dynamically as the team grows. Sharing Sets (Option A) are specifically for Experience Cloud (External) users and do not apply to internal support staff. Apex Managed Sharing (Option B) is a "last resort" for complex, programmatic sharing logic that cannot be achieved via declarative tools. Since the requirement aligns perfectly with the standard manager-subordinate relationship, the Role Hierarchy is the most efficient and standard solution.