Pass the Salesforce Developers PDII Questions and answers with CertsForce

In Salesforce Apex triggers, choosing the correct context (before vs. after) is critical for performance and data integrity. When the business requirement involves creating or modifying related records (records other than the one that fired the trigger), an after trigger is the platform-standard choice.

An after update trigger (Option D) is ideal here because it ensures that the Case record has been successfully validated and saved to the database (obtaining a valid timestamp and state) before the child Engineering_Review__c record is generated. Furthermore, an after trigger provides access to the read-only Trigger.new and Trigger.old maps, which contain the final field values after system validation rules and flows have run. Performing DML operations to insert a new object within a before trigger is technically possible but discouraged, as it can lead to issues if the primary record fails a subsequent system validation, potentially leaving orphaned data or causing complicated rollback scenarios.

Options B and C are incorrect because "upsert" is not a valid trigger event; the valid events are insert, update, delete, and undelete. Option A is incorrect because before triggers should primarily be used for updating fields on the same record that initiated the trigger to avoid redundant DML calls. Therefore, an after update trigger provides the most stable and scalable context for cross-object record creation.

==========

The lightning-record-form is a powerful, high-level component that simplifies data entry and display. However, its performance is heavily influenced by the layout-type attribute. When layout-type="Full" is used, the component fetches and renders every single field defined on the object's "Full" page layout in the Salesforce metadata. In this case, the Account object has 275 fields. Fetching and rendering such a large volume of metadata and data causes a significant performance lag, even if the user only cares about three specific fields.

To improve performance, the developer should switch from a layout-based approach to a field-based approach. By removing the layout-type attribute and adding the fields attribute (Option A), the developer can pass an array of only the specific field API names required (e.g., ['Name', 'CustomField1__c', 'CustomField2__c']). This drastically reduces the amount of data requested from the Lightning Data Service (LDS) and minimizes the DOM elements the browser needs to render. Option C is incorrect because "Partial" is not a valid value for layout-type; the only supported values are "Full" and "Compact". Option B only affects the visual spacing of the fields and does not reduce the data load. Option A is the direct and most effective way to optimize component responsiveness by limiting the data scope.

To include an external JavaScript library in a Lightning Web Component (LWC), developers must follow a specific security and loading protocol dictated by the Lightning Locker or LWC Security. Standard HTML <script> tags (Option D) are not permitted in LWC templates for security reasons.

The correct process involves three steps:

Import the method from the platformResourceLoader (Option C): The developer must import the loadScript (for JS) or loadStyle (for CSS) function from the lightning/platformResourceLoader module.

Import the static resource (Option B): The developer must import the URL of the static resource using the @salesforce/resourceUrl/resourceName syntax.

Call loadScript (Option A): Inside a lifecycle hook (typically renderedCallback), the developer calls loadScript(this, this.myResourceUrl). This function returns a Promise, allowing the developer to perform initialization logic once the library is fully loaded and ready for use.

Option E is incorrect because LWC handles the loading and execution within the framework's security context; manually appending elements to the DOM is not the standard or safe way to load resources. This three-step process ensures that the external code is loaded asynchronously and safely within the component's namespace.

==========

Comprehensive and Detailed 150 to 14250 words of Explanation:

Jest tests for Lightning Web Components (LWC) run in a virtual browser environment called JSDOM. In this environment, the document.body persists across individual test cases (it or test blocks) within a single test file. If a developer mounts a component to the DOM in the first test and doesn't remove it, the component's state and DOM elements will still be present when the second test starts, leading to "leaked" data and unreliable test results.

To ensure test isolation—which is critical for testing conditional rendering—the developer must clean up the DOM after every test. The standard best practice is to use the afterEach() hook (Option D). Within this hook, the developer should execute a loop that removes all child elements from document.body. This ensures that each test begins with a completely "clean slate."

Option A is too vague; "teardown block" is a general term, but afterEach() is the specific Jest implementation. Option B is for organizing tests but doesn't handle DOM cleanup. Option C is unnecessary as the LWC testing utility manages the JSDOM instance. By using afterEach() to reset the DOM, the developer can accurately verify that the component correctly shows or hides child components based on the specific inputs provided in each individual test case.

==========

For high-volume, automated standard email communications, Email Alerts with Flow Builder (Option B) is the most scalable and maintainable solution. Salesforce imposes strict limits on the number of "Single" emails sent via Apex (typically 5,000 per 24 hours). However, emails 5sent via Workflow Rules, Process Builder, or Flow6 Builder (Email Alerts) have a much higher daily limit (2,000,000 per org).

To meet the requirement of 10,000 emails per day, an Apex-based solution using SingleEmailMessage() (Option D) would likely hit the daily limit and cause transaction failures. MassEmailMessage() (Option C) is generally intended for manual mass mailing to Contacts or Leads and is not optimized for automated, per-record trigger logic. While Batch Apex (Option A) could process many records, the underlying SingleEmailMessage limit would still apply.

By using an Email Alert triggered by a Record-Triggered Flow, the developer leverages the platform's high-volume email engine. This approach is declarative, requires no custom code, is easier for administrators to maintain, and comfortably handles the 10,000 daily email requirement without risking governor limit exceptions. It also ensures the "criteria evaluation" happens within the standard Flow entry conditions.

==========

The provided code violates two fundamental Salesforce Apex best practices: bulkification and efficient use of trigger contexts. First, the code performs a SOQL query inside a loop (setPricingStructure is called inside the trigger's for loop). This is a critical performance issue because it consumes one SOQL query per record in the transaction. If 200 opportunities are updated at once, the code will hit the governor limit of 100 SOQL queries and throw an exception. To optimize this, the developer should use a Map or List to query all necessary Pricing_Structure__c records once, outside the loop (Option C), and then reference that collection during processing.

Second, the code is running in a before trigger context. In a before insert or before update trigger, any changes made directly to the records in Trigger.new are automatically saved to the database when the trigger completes without the need for an explicit DML update statement. Including an update thisOpp; statement (Option A) is not only redundant but dangerous, as it can trigger a recursive loop where the update re-fires the same trigger, leading to a "Maximum stack depth reached" error. By removing the DML statement and bulkifying the query, the code becomes more efficient, scalable, and compliant with platform governor limits.

==========

To query history records for a standard object like Account, the developer must use the correct API name, which is AccountHistory (not Account_History). When filtering for a range of dates, SOQL provides the BETWEEN operator, which makes the query cleaner and more readable. Option C uses both the correct object name and the BETWEEN syntax, making it the most efficient solution.

In SOQL, CreatedDate BETWEEN :initialDate AND :endDate is shorthand for CreatedDate >= :initialDate AND CreatedDate <= :endDate. In the provided code, initialDate is 12 months ago (the older date) and endDate is 6 months ago (the more recent date). Therefore, the range correctly captures records between those two timestamps.

Option A and B use an incorrect object name (Account_History). Option D uses the incorrect comparison operator => (the correct operator is >=). Furthermore, Option C follows the best practice for date range queries in Apex by using bind variables with the standard AccountHistory object, ensuring the "Auditors" profile can retrieve the necessary historical data within the platform's audit and security constraints.

==========

The current bottleneck is caused by the need to resolve Salesforce Internal IDs ($001...$) for the Account lookup before orders can be imported. This can be completely bypassed by using External IDs (Option D) and the Upsert operation (Option C).

External IDs: By marking a unique field from the OMS (like OMS_Account_Number__c) as an External ID in Salesforce, the developer creates a "foreign key" that Salesforce understands.

Upsert Wizard: When using the Data Loader's Upsert wizard, the user is asked which field should be used to match the parent Account. By selecting the OMS_Account_Number__c external ID, the Data Loader allows the user to map the orders directly to accounts using the OMS number found in the CSV file.

Salesforce will automatically find the correct Account ID in the background. This eliminates the "export-and-VLOOKUP" step entirely. Option A (Insert) would still require internal IDs. Option B (sorting) helps with performance in massive loads but doesn't solve the manual ID matching problem. Using Upsert with External IDs is the platform-recommended way to streamline recurring data integrations.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

In SOQL, using the OR operator often prevents the Query Optimizer from using indexes effectively, especially if the fields involve different types of data. This is known as a "non-selective" query structure in LDV environments.

By breaking the query into two separate SOQL statements (Option A), the developer allows each query to be evaluated independently.

SELECT ... FROM Account WHERE CreatedDate = :thisDate (Uses the standard index on CreatedDate).

SELECT ... FROM Account WHERE RecordTypeId = :goldenRT (Uses the standard index on RecordTypeId).

The developer can then combine the results into a Map to ensure uniqueness (preventing duplicates if a record meets both criteria). This approach ensures both queries are "selective" and run much faster than a single query with an OR filter.

Option D is a common anti-pattern because formulas are generally not indexed unless they are "deterministic" and a custom index is requested from Salesforce support; even then, filtering on formulas is often slower than direct field filters. Option B and C do not address the underlying database performance issue.

Platform Events follow an event-driven architecture that allows for seamless integration between internal Salesforce processes and external applications. Once an event is defined, it must be "published" to the event bus to be seen by subscribers.

External Applications (Option C) publish platform events by using the Salesforce REST, SOAP, or Pub/Sub APIs. Essentially, an external app "inserts" a record into the event object (e.g., Order_Event__e). Since platform events are treated as a special type of Salesforce object, the standard API create call acts as the publishing mechanism.

Option A is incorrect because the Streaming API is used for subscribing to events, not for publishing them. Option B is incorrect because Outbound Messages are a legacy SOAP-based notification tool and do not publish platform events. Option D is incorrect because Entitlement Processes are service-level management tools and are not part of the event-driven architecture.

For internal apps, platform events can also be published via Apex (using EventBus.publish()) or declaratively using Flow Builder. The key takeaway for external integration is that publishing is handled via standard Salesforce APIs, making it accessible to any system capable of making an HTTP request.