Salesforce Integration-Architect Dumps Questions Answers

Salesforce Connect is a powerful tool for data virtualization, allowing users to view and manage data in external systems (via OData) as if it were stored natively in Salesforce. However, a critical security decision during the setup of an External Data Source is determining the Identity Type.

The Identity Type determines how the external system authenticates the Salesforce user. There are two primary options:

Named Principal: Every Salesforce user accesses the external system using the same set of credentials. This is easier to maintain but provides less granular security tracking in the target system.

Per User: Each individual Salesforce user must provide their own credentials for the external system. This ensures that the data visible in Salesforce respects the user's specific permissions in the external source.

Configuring the Identity Type is the fundamental way an architect secures OData requests because it defines the authentication boundary between the platforms. While certificates (Option A) can be used for transport layer security, the "Identity Type" configuration is the specific Salesforce Connect setting that governs how a session is authorized. Option B (Special Compatibility) is a technical setting used to handle non-standard OData implementations and does not directly relate to securing the request. By recommending the correct Identity Type, the architect ensures that the integration adheres to the "Principle of Least Privilege," ensuring that users only see the external data they are authorized to access.

Achieving "exactly once" delivery and high reliability in a critical finance integration requires an asynchronous pattern that provides better control and error handling than standard @future methods. Queueable Apex is the architecturally preferred solution for this scenario.

Queueable Apex offers several advantages over @future methods:

Stateful tracking: Unlike @future, Queueable jobs return a Job ID, allowing the system to monitor progress and verify completion.

Chaining: You can chain jobs to process records sequentially, which helps maintain the integrity of order and line item data.

Complex Data Types: Queueables can accept complex objects as parameters, making it easier to pass high-fidelity order data than the primitive types required by @future.

Option A is unreliable because it relies on human intervention for retries, which is prone to error and does not scale. Option C is less desirable because @future methods cannot be monitored as effectively and lack the ability to return a Job ID for subsequent tracking.

To ensure accurate invoicing, the architect should design the Queueable class with a custom error handling process that includes logging failures and a retry mechanism. Additionally, to prevent duplicate invoicing, the finance application should be designed with an Idempotency check (using a unique Order ID from Salesforce) to ensure that if a retry is sent, the system recognizes the duplicate and does not create a second invoice. This combination of Queueable Apex and idempotency provides the highest level of reliability for critical financial transactions.

When a business process does not require immediate confirmation from a target system, the architecture can move from a synchronous Request-Reply pattern to an asynchronous Fire-and-Forget pattern. In this transition, the most critical "non-functional" requirement for the Integration Architect is to define acceptable latency.

Latency determines the technical stack. If the fulfillment system must receive the order within seconds (Near Real-Time), the architect might choose Salesforce Outbound Messaging or a Flow-triggered Platform Event. If the order only needs to arrive within 4-12 hours, a Batch ETL process is more efficient as it conserves API limits and can handle much higher volumes more reliably.

While address validation (Option B) is a functional requirement, it does not define the architectural framework. Option C is a specific solution implementation question rather than a fundamental design constraint. By asking about latency, the architect identifies the time boundary between "Data Entry" in Salesforce and "Processing" in the fulfillment system. This answer directly informs the choice of pattern, the retry logic required, and the error-handling strategy needed to ensure the "Order-to-Cash" cycle is completed successfully without blocking the sales rep's productivity.