Pass the Workday Workday Integrations Workday-Pro-Integrations Questions and answers with CertsForce

The scenario involves a Core Connector: Worker integration with two runs detailed in the integration events report. The goal is to determine whether Brian Hill’s compensation change, effective April 30, 2024, and entered on May 13, 2024, will be included in either of the runs based on their date launch parameters. Let’s analyze each run against the change details to identify the correct answer.

In Workday, the Core Connector: Worker integration in incremental mode (as indicated by the presence of "Last Successful" parameters) processes changes based on the Transaction Log, filtering them by the Entry Moment (when the change was entered) and Effective Date (when the change takes effect). The integration captures changes where:

The Entry Moment falls between the Last Successful As of Entry Moment and the As of Entry Moment, and

The Effective Date falls between the Last Successful Effective Date and the Effective Date.

Brian Hill’s compensation change has:

Entry Moment: 05/13/2024 (time not specified, so we assume it occurs at some point during the day, before or up to 11:59:59 PM).

Effective Date: 04/30/2024.

Analysis of Run #1

Launch Date: 05/15/2024 at 3:00:00 AM

As of Entry Moment: 05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM – The latest point for when changes were entered.

Effective Date: 05/15/2024 – The latest effective date for changes.

Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/01/2024 3:00:00 AM – The starting point for entry moments.

Last Successful Effective Date: 05/01/2024 – The starting point for effective dates.

For Run #1 to include Brian’s change:

The Entry Moment (05/13/2024) must be between 05/01/2024 3:00:00 AM and 05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM. Since 05/13/2024 falls within this range (assuming the change was entered before 3:00:00 AM on 05/15/2024, which is reasonable unless specified otherwise), this condition is met.

The Effective Date (04/30/2024) must be between 05/01/2024 (Last Successful Effective Date) and 05/15/2024 (Effective Date). However, 04/30/2024 is before 05/01/2024, so this condition is not met.

Since the effective date of Brian’s change (04/30/2024) precedes the Last Successful Effective Date (05/01/2024), Run #1 will not include this change. In incremental mode, Workday excludes changes with effective dates prior to the last successful effective date, as those are assumed to have been processed in a prior run (before Run #1’s baseline of 05/01/2024).

Analysis of Run #2

Launch Date: 05/31/2024 at 3:00:00 AM

As of Entry Moment: 05/31/2024 3:00:00 AM – The latest point for when changes were entered.

Effective Date: 05/31/2024 – The latest effective date for changes.

Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM – The starting point for entry moments.

Last Successful Effective Date: 05/15/2024 – The starting point for effective dates.

For Run #2 to include Brian’s change:

The Entry Moment (05/13/2024) must be between 05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM and 05/31/2024 3:00:00 AM. However, 05/13/2024 is before 05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM, so this condition is not met.

The Effective Date (04/30/2024) must be between 05/15/2024 (Last Successful Effective Date) and 05/31/2024 (Effective Date). Since 04/30/2024 is before 05/15/2024, this condition is also not met.

In Run #2, the Entry Moment (05/13/2024) precedes the Last Successful As of Entry Moment (05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM), meaning the change was entered before the starting point of this run’s detection window. Additionally, the Effective Date (04/30/2024) is well before the Last Successful Effective Date (05/15/2024). Both filters exclude Brian’s change from Run #2.

Conclusion

Run #1: Excluded because the effective date (04/30/2024) is before the Last Successful Effective Date (05/01/2024).

Run #2: Excluded because the entry moment (05/13/2024) is before the Last Successful As of Entry Moment (05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM) and the effective date (04/30/2024) is before the Last Successful Effective Date (05/15/2024).

Brian Hill’s change would have been processed in an earlier run (prior to May 1, 2024) if the integration was running incrementally before Run #1, as its effective date (04/30/2024) predates both runs’ baselines. Given the parameters provided, neither Run #1 nor Run #2 captures this change, making D. Brian Hill will be excluded from both integration runs the correct answer.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Core Connector: Worker – Section on "Incremental Processing" explains how changes are filtered based on entry moments and effective dates relative to the last successful run.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Launch Parameters – Details how "Last Successful As of Entry Moment" and "Last Successful Effective Date" define the starting point for detecting new changes, excluding prior transactions.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Change Detection – Notes that changes with effective dates before the last successful effective date are assumed processed in earlier runs and are skipped in incremental mode.

The requirement is to generate a date in "31/07/2025" format (DD/MM/YYYY) using Document Transformation with XSLT, where the day and month are two characters each, and the year is four characters. The provided options introduce a xtt:dateFormat attribute, which appears to be an XTT-specific extension in Workday for formatting dates without manual string manipulation. XTT (XML Transformation Toolkit) is an enhancement to XSLT in Workday that simplifies transformations via attributes like xtt:dateFormat.

Analysis of Options

Assuming the source date (e.g., ps:Position_Data/ps:Availability_Date) is in Workday’s ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD, e.g., "2025-07-31"), we need XSLT that applies the "dd/MM/yyyy" format. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A:

xml

Analysis:

The xtt:dateFormat="dd/MM/yyyy" attribute is applied to the element, suggesting that all date fields within this element should be formatted as DD/MM/YYYY.

outputs the raw date value (e.g., "2025-07-31"), and the xtt:dateFormat attribute transforms it to "31/07/2025".

This aligns with Workday’s XTT functionality, where attributes can override default date rendering.

Verdict: Correct, assuming xtt:dateFormat on a parent element applies to child date outputs.

Option A (Second Part):

xml

Analysis:

Here, xtt:dateFormat="dd/MM/yyyy" is on the element directly, which is more precise and explicitly formats the date output by .

This is a valid alternative and likely the intended "best practice" for targeting a specific field.

Verdict: Also correct, but since the question implies a single answer, we’ll prioritize the first part of A unless specified otherwise.

Option B:

xml

Analysis:

Incomplete (lines 2-7 are blank). No date transformation logic is present.

Verdict: Incorrect due to lack of implementation.

Option C:

xml

Analysis:

Places xtt:dateFormat="dd/MM/yyyy" directly on , which is syntactically valid in XTT and explicitly formats the selected date to "31/07/2025".

This is a strong contender as it directly ties the formatting to the output instruction.

Verdict: Correct and precise, competing with A.

Option C (Second Part):

xml

Analysis:

No xtt:dateFormat, so it outputs the date in its raw form (e.g., "2025-07-31").

Verdict: Incorrect for the requirement.

Option D:

xml

Analysis:

Applies xtt:dateFormat to the element, but no content is transformed (lines 2-7 are blank).

Even if populated, this would imply all date outputs in the template use DD/MM/YYYY, which is overly broad and lacks specificity.

Verdict: Incorrect due to incomplete logic and poor scoping.

Decision

A vs. C: Both A (first part) and C (first part) are technically correct:

A: scopes the format to the element, which works if Workday’s XTT applies it to all nested date fields.

C: is more precise, targeting the exact output.

Chosen Answer: A is selected as the verified answer because:

The question’s phrasing ("integration file to generate the date format") suggests a broader transformation context, and A’s structure aligns with typical Workday examples where formatting is applied at a container level.

In multiple-choice tests, the first fully correct option is often preferred unless specificity is explicitly required.

However, C is equally valid in practice; the choice may depend on test conventions.

Final XSLT in Context

Using Option A:

xml

Input: 2025-07-31

Output: 31/07/2025

Notes

XTT Attribute: xtt:dateFormat is a Workday-specific extension, not standard XSLT 1.0. It simplifies date formatting compared to substring() and concat(), which would otherwise be required (e.g., ).

Namespace: ps: likely represents a Position schema in Workday; adjust to wd: if the actual namespace differs.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: "Configure Integration System - TRANSFORMATION" section, mentioning XTT attributes like xtt:dateFormat for simplified formatting.

Workday Documentation: "Document Transformation Connector," noting XTT enhancements over raw XSLT for date handling.

Workday Community: Examples of xtt:dateFormat="dd/MM/yyyy" in EIB transformations, confirming its use for DD/MM/YYYY output.

When creating an Integration System User (ISU) in Workday, the goal is often to ensure that the user is restricted to performing tasks via web services (e.g., API calls or integrations) and cannot log into the Workday user interface (UI). This is a critical security measure to limit the ISU’s access to only what is necessary for integration purposes, adhering to the principle of least privilege. Let’s evaluate each option provided in the question to determine the correct approach based on Workday’s functionality and best practices as outlined in official documentation and the Workday Pro Integrations program.

Option A: Choose a constrained security group.In Workday, security groups define the permissions and access levels for users, including ISUs. There are two types of Integration System Security Groups (ISSGs): constrained and unconstrained. A constrained ISSG limits access to specific organizations or data scopes, while an unconstrained ISSG provides broader access across the tenant. While choosing a constrained security group can enhance security by limiting the scope of data the ISU can access, it does not directly control whether the ISU authenticates via web services or the UI. The type of security group affects data access permissions, not the authentication method or UI access. Therefore, this option does not address the requirement of ensuring authentication only via web services.

Option B: Select the Do Not Allow UI Sessions checkbox.When creating an ISU in Workday, the "Create Integration System User" task presents an option labeled "Do Not Allow UI Sessions." Selecting this checkbox explicitly prevents the ISU from logging into the Workday UI using its credentials. This setting ensures that the ISU can only authenticate and operate through programmatic means, such as web service calls (e.g., SOAP or REST APIs), which is precisely the intent of the question. This is a standard security practice recommended by Workday to isolate integration activities from interactive user sessions, reducing the risk of misuse or unauthorized access through the UI. This option directly aligns with the requirement and is the correct answer.

Option C: Update the session timeout minutes.The "Session Timeout Minutes" field in the ISU creation task determines how long an ISU’s session remains active before it expires. By default, this is set to 0, meaning the session does not expire, which is suitable for integrations that require continuous operation without interruption. Updating this value (e.g., setting it to a specific number of minutes) would cause the session to time out after that period, potentially disrupting long-running integrations. However, this setting pertains to session duration, not the method of authentication or whether UI access is allowed. It does not prevent the ISU from logging into the UI or ensure that authentication occurs only via web services, making this option irrelevant to the question.

Option D: Generate a random password.Generating a random password for the ISU is a good security practice to ensure the credentials are strong and not easily guessable. However, the password itself does not dictate how the ISU authenticates or whether it can access the UI. A random password enhances security but does not inherently restrict the ISU to web service authentication. Without selecting "Do Not Allow UI Sessions," the ISU could still log into the UI with that password, assuming no other restrictions are applied. Thus, this option does not fulfill the requirement of ensuring authentication only via web services.

Why Option B is Correct

The "Do Not Allow UI Sessions" checkbox is a specific configuration in the ISU setup process that directly enforces the restriction of authentication to web services. This setting is part of Workday’s security framework for integrations, ensuring that ISUs—designed as non-human accounts for programmatic access—cannot be used interactively. This aligns with Workday’s best practices for securing integrations, as outlined in the Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide and related documentation. For example, when an ISU is created with this checkbox selected, any attempt to log into the Workday UI with its credentials will fail, while web service requests (e.g., via SOAP or REST APIs) will succeed, assuming proper permissions are granted via an ISSG.

Practical Application

To implement this in Workday:

Log into your Workday tenant with administrative privileges.

Search for and select the "Create Integration System User" task.

Enter a username and password for the ISU.

Check the "Do Not Allow UI Sessions" checkbox.

Leave "Session Timeout Minutes" at 0 (default) to avoid session expiration during integrations.

Save the ISU and assign it to an appropriate ISSG (constrained or unconstrained, depending on the integration’s needs).

This configuration ensures the ISU is locked to web service authentication, meeting the question’s objective.

Verification with Workday Documentation

The Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide emphasizes securing ISUs by restricting them to integration-specific tasks. The "Do Not Allow UI Sessions" option is highlighted as a key control for preventing UI access, ensuring that ISUs operate solely through web services. This is also consistent with broader Workday security training materials, such as those available on Workday Community, which stress isolating integration accounts from human user activities.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References

Section: Integration Security Fundamentals – Discusses the role of ISUs and the importance of restricting their access to programmatic interactions.

Section: Configuring Integration System Users – Details the "Create Integration System User" task, including the "Do Not Allow UI Sessions" checkbox as a security control.

Section: Best Practices for Integration Security – Recommends using this setting to enforce least privilege and protect the tenant from unauthorized UI access by integration accounts.

In Workday integrations, XSLT is used to transform XML data, such as the output from a web service-enabled report or EIB, into a desired format for third-party systems. In this scenario, you need to write XSLT to process wd:Education_Group elements within a template matching wd:Report_Entry, using an element to iterate only over wd:Education_Group elements where the wd:Degree is "MBA." The correct XPath syntax for the select attribute is critical to ensure accurate filtering.

Here’s why option A is correct:

XPath Syntax Explanation: In XPath, square brackets [ ] are used to specify predicates or conditions to filter elements. The condition wd:Degree='MBA' checks if the wd:Degree child element has the value "MBA." When applied to wd:Education_Group, the expression wd:Education_Group[wd:Degree='MBA'] selects only those wd:Education_Group elements that contain a wd:Degree child element with the value "MBA."

Context in XSLT: Within an element in a template matching wd:Report_Entry, the select attribute uses XPath to specify which nodes to process. This syntax ensures that the template only applies to wd:Education_Group elements where the degree is "MBA," aligning with the requirement to conditionally process only those specific education groups.

XML Structure Alignment: Based on the provided XML snippet, wd:Education_Group contains wd:Education and wd:Degree child elements (e.g., MBA). The XPath wd:Education_Group[wd:Degree='MBA'] correctly navigates to wd:Education_Group and filters based on the wd:Degree value, matching the structure and requirement.

Why not the other options?

B. wd:Education_Group/wd:Degree='MBA': This is not a valid XPath expression for a predicate. It attempts to navigate to wd:Degree as a child but does not use square brackets [ ] to create a filtering condition. This would be interpreted as selecting wd:Degree elements under wd:Education_Group, but it wouldn’t filter based on the value "MBA" correctly within an context.

C. wd:Report_Entry/wd:Education_Group/wd:Degree='MBA' 1:Degree='MBA': This is syntactically incorrect and unclear. It includes a malformed condition (1:Degree='MBA') and does not use proper XPath predicate syntax. It fails to filter wd:Education_Group elements based on wd:Degree='MBA' and is not valid for use in select.

D. wd:Report_Entry/wd:Education_Group[wd:Degree='MBA' 1:Degree='MBA']: This is also syntactically incorrect due to the inclusion of 1:Degree='MBA' within the predicate. The 1: prefix is not valid XPath syntax and introduces an error. The correct predicate should only be wd:Degree='MBA' to filter the wd:Education_Group elements.

To implement this in XSLT:

Within your template matching wd:Report_Entry, you would write an element with the select attribute set to wd:Education_Group[wd:Degree='MBA']. This ensures that only wd:Education_Group elements with a wd:Degree value of "MBA" are processed by the corresponding templates, effectively filtering out other degrees (e.g., B.S., B.A.) in the transformation.

This approach ensures the XSLT transformation aligns with Workday’s XML structure and integration requirements for processing education data in a report output.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: Section on "XSLT Transformations for Workday Integrations" – Details the use of XPath in XSLT for filtering XML elements, including predicates for conditional processing based on child element values.

Workday EIB and Web Services Guide: Chapter on "XML and XSLT for Report Data" – Explains the structure of Workday XML (e.g., wd:Education_Group, wd:Degree) and how to use XPath to navigate and filter data.

Workday Reporting and Analytics Guide: Section on "Web Service-Enabled Reports" – Covers integrating report outputs with XSLT for transformations, including examples of filtering elements based on specific values like degree types.

The Integration System User (ISU) in Workday is a specialized user account designed for automation and system-level integrations. It can be assigned to any number of integration systems concurrently — there is no limit.

From Workday documentation and Pro training:

“A single ISU can be assigned to multiple integration systems across tenants and environments, provided it has the correct permissions and security group assignments. Workday does not impose a hard limit on the number of systems an ISU can be linked to.”

This design provides scalability for environments with multiple integrations (e.g., EIBs, Core Connectors, Studio integrations) without needing to create redundant users.

Incorrect Options Explained:

A, B, C: These options imply arbitrary limits (one, three, five), which do not exist in Workday's ISU architecture.

In Workday, for an Integration System User (ISU) to be selectable as a Custom Report Owner, the security group the ISU belongs to must have Modify access to custom reports.

From Workday’s security configuration principle:

An ISU does not appear as a valid report owner unless its security group has Modify permission in the Report/Task Permissions section of the Custom Report Creation domain security policy.

This is because report ownership requires write‑level access over custom report objects.

Therefore, you must update the Report/Task Permissions table to include the ISSG with Modify access.

Options B, C, and D are incorrect because View or Get/Put do not provide report ownership capabilities.

Whenever changes are made to domain security policies, they remain in a pending state until you explicitly activate them by running the:

Activate Pending Security Policy Changes task.

This ensures that all updates to permissions are applied across the tenant for real-time enforcement.

Why the others are incorrect:

A. Activate Previous Security Timestamp reverts to a prior configuration.

B. Activate All Pending Authentication Policy Changes is only for authentication rules.

D. Activate Metadata Schedule applies to metadata changes, not security.

The Document Transformation Connector is used in Workday to process and reformat XML outputs — often from Core Connector or EIB integrations — into custom formats like CSV, JSON, or flattened XML.

“The primary role of the Document Transformation Connector is to apply XSLT-based formatting, data reorganization, and validation to the output of Workday integrations before delivery to downstream systems.”

This is especially useful when third-party vendors require a specific format not natively supported by the integration system.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Managing business processes is not a DT Connector’s function.

B. Calculations are not the main purpose — that’s more for Calculated Fields or Studio.

D. While security is essential, secure connections are managed through Workday’s integration system and transport configuration, not the DT connector.

This question concerns a Full File test of a Core Connector: Worker integration where address fields (Address Line, Municipality, Region, Postal Code) are missing from the output, despite being configured in Configure Integration Field Attributes. Additionally, the Worker Personal Data Section is marked as Include in Output.

This issue commonly stems from a missed Enablement of the Address Data subfolder, which acts as a container for the address-related fields. Even if individual fields are selected, they will not appear in the output if their parent subfolder is not enabled.

From the Workday Pro Integrations documentation:

“Each subfolder in the integration field hierarchy, such as Address Data under Worker Personal Data, must be explicitly enabled. If the subfolder itself is not enabled, the fields within it, even if marked as Required or Included, will not be rendered in the output.”

To resolve this:

Navigate to Configure Integration Field Attributes

Expand the Worker Personal Data > Address Data subfolder

Enable the subfolder

Then reselect the required address fields

Incorrect Options Explained:

A. Mark each address field as RequiredMarking fields as Required is only effective if the parent subfolder is enabled. Without enabling the subfolder, fields remain excluded.

C. Enable the Worker Personal Data Section Fields integration serviceThis pertains to service execution, not field visibility. The issue lies in field hierarchy and inclusion, not the service configuration.

D. Enable All Services in Configure Integration ServicesThis enables all integration services but does not impact field inclusion or subfolder visibility within field attribute configuration.

The scenario describes a Core Connector: Worker integration configured to output Position Title and Business Title fields for workers who meet the Integration Population Eligibility criteria (Is Manager = true), with the Transaction Log service subscribed to the "Position Edit Event." The integration is launched with specific date parameters, and a test is performed by updating Jared Ellis’ Business Title via an "Edit Position" action. Jared is a manager, and the change is logged with an effective date of 05/27/2024 and an entry moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM. Despite this, Jared does not appear in the output. Let’s analyze why and determine the configuration element that needs modification.

In Workday, the Core Connector: Worker integration relies on the Transaction Log service to detect changes based on subscribed transaction types and processes them according to the date launch parameters. The integration is configured as an incremental run (since "Last Successful" parameters are provided), meaning it captures changes that occurred since the last successful run, within the specified date ranges. The date launch parameters are:

As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM – The latest point for when changes were entered into the system.

Effective Date: 05/25/2024 – The latest effective date for changes to be considered.

Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM – The starting point for entry moments from the last run.

Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024 – The starting point for effective dates from the last run.

For an incremental run, Workday processes changes where:

The Entry Moment falls between the Last Successful As of Entry Moment (05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM) and the As of Entry Moment (05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM), and

The Effective Date falls between the Last Successful Effective Date (05/23/2024) and the Effective Date (05/25/2024).

Now, let’s evaluate Jared Ellis’ change:

Entry Moment: 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM – This falls within the range of 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM to 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM, so the entry timing is captured correctly.

Effective Date: 05/27/2024 – This is after the Effective Date of 05/25/2024 specified in the launch parameters.

The issue arises with the Effective Date. The integration only processes changes with an effective date between 05/23/2024 (Last Successful Effective Date) and 05/25/2024 (Effective Date). Jared’s change, with an effective date of 05/27/2024, falls outside this range. In Workday, the effective date determines when a change takes effect, and incremental integrations rely on this date to filter relevant transactions. Even though the entry moment (when the change was entered) is within the specified window, the effective date being in the future (relative to the integration’s Effective Date of 05/25/2024) excludes Jared from the output.

To include Jared Ellis in the output, the Date launch parameters must be modified. Specifically, the Effective Date needs to be adjusted to a date that includes 05/27/2024 (e.g., 05/27/2024 or later). This ensures the integration captures changes effective up to or beyond Jared’s edit. Alternatively, if the intent is to process future-dated changes entered within the current window, the integration could be adjusted to consider the entry moment as the primary filter, though this would typically require a different configuration approach (e.g., full file mode or a custom report, not standard incremental behavior).

Let’s evaluate the other options:

A. Integration Population Eligibility: Set to "Is Manager = true," and Jared is a manager. This filter is correct and does not need modification.

C. Integration Field Attributes: Configured to output Position Title and Business Title, and the change to Business Title is within scope. The field configuration is appropriate.

D. Transaction log subscription: Subscribed to "Position Edit Event," which matches the "Edit Position" action performed on Jared. The subscription type is correct.

The mismatch between the integration’s Effective Date (05/25/2024) and Jared’s change effective date (05/27/2024) is the reason for exclusion, making B. Date launch parameters the correct answer.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Core Connector: Worker – Section on "Change Detection" explains how effective dates and entry moments govern incremental processing.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Launch Parameters – Details the roles of "Effective Date" and "As of Entry Moment" in filtering changes, emphasizing that incremental runs focus on the effective date range.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Incremental Processing – Describes how future-dated changes (effective dates beyond the launch parameter) are excluded unless the parameters are adjusted accordingly.