Pass the Salesforce Salesforce MuleSoft MuleSoft-Platform-Architect-I Questions and answers with CertsForce

OAuth 2.0 and PingFederate Setup:

The organization uses PingFederate as the identity provider, integrated with Anypoint Platform for OAuth 2.0 authentication and authorization.

The PingFederate OAuth 2.0 Token Enforcement policy is applied to the API instances, requiring clients to be registered and authenticated via PingFederate.

Accessing Secured APIs:

API consumers need to register their client applications in Anypoint Exchange to request access to the secured APIs.

The API administrator then reviews and approves the access request in API Manager. This grants the client application a contract, allowing it to access the API using OAuth 2.0 tokens issued by PingFederate.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A: Configuring the client discovery URL in child business groups is not relevant to granting access; this is part of setting up PingFederate, not managing consumer access.

Option B: While creating contracts in API Manager is necessary, this option lacks the detail about the process in Anypoint Exchange, where consumers request access.

Option C (Correct Answer): API consumers must create a client application in Anypoint Exchange to request access to the API, and the API administrator then approves the request in API Manager.

Option D: The access request and approval process happens within Anypoint Platform (Exchange and API Manager), not directly in Ping Identity.

Conclusion:

Option C is the correct answer as it accurately describes the process within Anypoint Platform where API consumers request access through Exchange, and the API administrator approves it.

Refer to MuleSoft's documentation on OAuth 2.0 setup with PingFederate and managing API client access in Exchange and API Manager.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Model all API resources and methods to closely mimic the operations of the backend system.

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

>> There are NO fixed and straight best practices while opting data models for APIs. They are completly contextual and depends on number of factors. Based upon those factors, an enterprise can choose if they have to go with Enterprise Canonical Data Model or Bounded Context Model etc.

>> One should NEVER expose the technical details of API implementation to their API clients. Only the API interface/ RAML is exposed to API clients.

>> It is true that the RAML definitions of APIs should be as detailed as possible and should reflect most of the documentation. However, just that is NOT enough to call your API as best documented API. There should be even more documentation on Anypoint Exchange with API Notebooks etc. to make and create a developer friendly API and repository..

>> The best practice always when creating System APIs is to create their API interfaces by modeling their resources and methods to closely reflect the operations and functionalities of that backend system.

When an API implementation is deployed on CloudHub without configuring automatic restarts in case of worker non-responsiveness, MuleSoft’s monitoring and alerting behavior is as follows:

API Invocation Alerts:

If no clients are invoking the API, there will be no invocation alerts triggered, as alerts related to invocations depend on actual client requests.

Implementation-Level Alerts:

Even without invocation, CloudHub can still monitor the state of the API implementation. If the worker becomes unresponsive, an alert related to the API implementation's health or availability could still be raised.

Why Option C is Correct:

This option correctly identifies that no invocation-related alerts would be triggered in the absence of client requests, while implementation-level alerts could still be generated based on the worker's state.

ReferencesFor additional information, check MuleSoft documentation on CloudHub monitoring and alert configurations to understand worker status alerts versus invocation alerts​.

Explanation

Correct Answer: When a pragmatic approach with only limited isolation from the backend system is deemed appropriate.

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

General guidance w.r.t choosing Data Models:

>> If an Enterprise Data Model is in use then the API data model of System APIs should make use of data types from that Enterprise Data Model and the corresponding API implementation should translate between these data types from the Enterprise Data Model and the native data model of the backend system.

>> If no Enterprise Data Model is in use then each System API should be assigned to a Bounded Context, the API data model of System APIs should make use of data types from the corresponding Bounded Context Data Model and the corresponding API implementation should translate between these data types from the Bounded Context Data Model and the native data model of the backend system. In this scenario, the data types in the Bounded Context Data Model are defined purely in terms of their business characteristics and are typically not related to the native data model of the backend system. In other words, the translation effort may be significant.

>> If no Enterprise Data Model is in use, and the definition of a clean Bounded Context Data Model is considered too much effort, then the API data model of System APIs should make use of data types that approximately mirror those from the backend system, same semantics and naming as backend system, lightly sanitized, expose all fields needed for the given System API’s functionality, but not significantly more and making good use of REST conventions.

The latter approach, i.e., exposing in System APIs an API data model that basically mirrors that of the backend system, does not provide satisfactory isolation from backend systems through the System API tier on its own. In particular, it will typically not be possible to "swap out" a backend system without significantly changing all System APIs in front of that backend system and therefore the API implementations of all Process APIs that depend on those System APIs! This is so because it is not desirable to prolong the life of a previous backend system’s data model in the form of the API data model of System APIs that now front a new backend system. The API data models of System APIs following this approach must therefore change when the backend system is replaced.

On the other hand:

>> It is a very pragmatic approach that adds comparatively little overhead over accessing the backend system directly

>> Isolates API clients from intricacies of the backend system outside the data model (protocol, authentication, connection pooling, network address, …)

>> Allows the usual API policies to be applied to System APIs

>> Makes the API data model for interacting with the backend system explicit and visible, by exposing it in the RAML definitions of the System APIs

>> Further isolation from the backend system data model does occur in the API implementations of the Process API tier

Explanation

Correct Answer: When regulatory requirements mandate on-premises processing of EVERY data item, including meta-data.

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

We need NOT require to use Anypoint Platform PCE or PCF for the below. So these options are OUT.

>> We can make ALL applications highly available across multiple data centers using CloudHub too.

>> We can use Anypoint VPN and tunneling from CloudHub to connect to ALL backend systems in the application network that are deployed in the organization's intranet.

>> We can use Anypoint VPC and Firewall Rules to make ALL APIs private and NOT exposed to the public cloud.

Only valid reason in the given options that requires to use Anypoint Platform PCE/ PCF is - When regulatory requirements mandate on-premises processing of EVERY data item, including meta-data.

An Anypoint Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) provides a secure and private networking environment for MuleSoft applications, using specific architectural elements:

CIDR Blocks:

Anypoint VPCs utilize CIDR blocks to define IP ranges, allowing organizations to control and segment the VPC’s IP address space.

Port 6091 for HTTP Requests:

By default, HTTP requests can be made to workers on port 6091 from the public internet, providing an accessible entry point unless additional restrictions are applied.

Explanation of Correct Answers (B, E):

CIDR blocks enable IP range management for VPCs, and port 6091 is the default public entry port, which is part of Anypoint VPC’s default settings.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

Option A (Ports 8081 and 8082) is incorrect; these are not default public ports for Anypoint VPC.

Option C (responsible for load balancing) is incorrect as load balancing requires a separate Dedicated Load Balancer (DLB).

Option D (round-robin load balancing) applies to DLBs, not directly to VPCs.

ReferencesFor more on VPC setup and networking, refer to MuleSoft documentation on VPC configurations and default port settings​.

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.

In the initial meeting for establishing a Center for Enablement (C4E), it’s essential to lay the foundational vision, objectives, and guiding principles for the team. Here’s why this is crucial:

Clear Vision and Mission:

Defining the mission statement and objectives at the start ensures alignment within the organization and clarifies the C4E’s role in supporting API-led development and integration practices.

Guiding Principles:

Establishing guiding principles will help the C4E maintain consistent practices and strategies across projects. This serves as a framework for decisions and fosters shared understanding among IT leaders and stakeholders.

Explanation of Correct Answer (A):

By prioritizing the C4E’s objectives and mission, the organization builds a solid foundation, paving the way for subsequent meetings focused on technical standards, processes, and operating models.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

Option B (API monetization) and Option C (common services best practices) are specific topics better suited for later discussions.

Option D (specifying the operating model) is an important step but typically follows the establishment of the C4E’s objectives and vision.

ReferencesFor more on C4E objectives and foundational setup, refer to MuleSoft’s documentation on establishing a C4E and the roles and mission statements recommended for such initiatives​.

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.

When defining data models for System APIs without an established Enterprise Data Model, MuleSoft recommends mirroring the back-end systems' data types to achieve quick and effective integration without adding complexity. This approach has several benefits:

Alignment with Backend Systems:

Mirroring data types ensures consistency with backend data sources, which simplifies integration, reduces mapping requirements, and minimizes potential data transformation issues.

Flexibility for Future Enhancements:

By retaining close alignment with backend data structures, System APIs can evolve to support an Enterprise Data Model in the future without immediate restructuring.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

Option A (exposing misspellings) is not recommended as System APIs should still ensure a professional and coherent interface.

Option C (custom naming) complicates the API structure without adding immediate value in the absence of a clear data model.

Option D (exposing all fields) is unnecessary and can reduce performance and add complexity.

ReferencesRefer to MuleSoft best practices for data modeling in System APIs for additional information on mirroring backend systems​.