When creating an ISU, what should you do to ensure the user only authenticates via web services?
Choose a constrained security group.
Select the Do Not Allow UI Sessions checkbox.
Update the session timeout minutes.
Generate a random password.
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.
What is the purpose of granting an ISU modify access to the Integration Event domain via an ISSG?
To have the ISU own the integration schedule.
To let the ISU configure integration attributes and maps.
To log into the user interface as the ISU and launch the integration.
To build the integration system as the ISU.
Understanding ISUs and Integration Systems in Workday
Integration System User (ISU): An ISU is a specialized user account in Workday designed for integrations, functioning as a service account to authenticate and execute integration processes. ISUs are created using the "Create Integration System User" task and are typically configured with settings like disabling UI sessions and setting long session timeouts (e.g., 0 minutes) to prevent expiration during automated processes. ISUs are not human users but are instead programmatic accounts used for API calls, EIBs, Core Connectors, or other integration mechanisms.
Integration Systems: In Workday, an "integration system" refers to the configuration or setup of an integration, such as an External Integration Business (EIB), Core Connector, or custom integration via web services. Integration systems are defined to handle data exchange between Workday and external systems, and they require authentication, often via an ISU, to execute tasks like data retrieval, transformation, or posting.
Assigning ISUs to Integration Systems: ISUs are used to authenticate and authorize integration systems to interact with Workday. When configuring an integration system, you assign an ISU to provide the credentials needed for the integration to run. This assignment ensures that the integration can access Workday data and functionalities based on the security permissions granted to the ISU via its associated Integration System Security Group (ISSG).
Limitation on Assignment: Workday’s security model imposes restrictions to maintain control and auditability. Specifically, an ISU is designed to be tied to a single integration system to ensure clear accountability, prevent conflicts, and simplify security management. This limitation prevents an ISU from being reused across multiple unrelated integration systems, reducing the risk of unintended access or data leakage.
Evaluating Each Option
Let’s assess each option based on Workday’s integration and security practices:
Option A: An ISU can be assigned to five integration systems.
Analysis: This is incorrect. Workday does not impose a specific numerical limit like "five" for ISU assignments to integration systems. Instead, the limitation is more restrictive: an ISU is typically assigned to only one integration system to ensure focused security and accountability. Allowing an ISU to serve multiple systems could lead to confusion, overlapping permissions, or security risks, which Workday’s design avoids.
Why It Doesn’t Fit: There’s no documentation or standard practice in Workday Pro Integrations suggesting a limit of five integration systems per ISU. This option is arbitrary and inconsistent with Workday’s security model.
Option B: An ISU can be assigned to an unlimited number of integration systems.
Analysis: This is incorrect. Workday’s security best practices do not allow an ISU to be assigned to an unlimited number of integration systems. Allowing this would create security vulnerabilities, as an ISU’s permissions (via its ISSG) could be applied across multiple unrelated systems, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data conflicts. Workday enforces a one-to-one or tightly controlled relationship to maintain auditability and security.
Why It Doesn’t Fit: The principle of least privilege and clear accountability in Workday integrations requires limiting an ISU’s scope, not allowing unlimited assignments.
Option C: An ISU can be assigned to only one integration system.
Analysis: This is correct. In Workday, an ISU is typically assigned to a single integration system to ensure that its credentials and permissions are tightly scoped. This aligns with Workday’s security model, where ISUs are created for specific integration purposes (e.g., an EIB, Core Connector, or web service integration). When configuring an integration system, you specify the ISU in the integration setup (e.g., under "Integration System Attributes" or "Authentication" settings), and it is not reused across multiple systems to prevent conflicts or unintended access. This limitation ensures traceability and security, as the ISU’s actions can be audited within the context of that single integration.
Why It Fits: Workday documentation and best practices, including training materials and community forums, emphasize that ISUs are dedicated to specific integrations. For example, when creating an EIB or Core Connector, you assign an ISU, and it is not shared across other integrations unless explicitly reconfigured, which is rare and discouraged for security reasons.
Option D: An ISU can only be assigned to an ISSG and not an integration system.
Analysis: This is incorrect. While ISUs are indeed assigned to ISSGs to inherit security permissions (as established in Question 26), they are also assigned to integration systems to provide authentication and authorization for executing integration tasks. The ISU’s role includes both: it belongs to an ISSG for permissions and is linked to an integration system for execution. Saying it can only be assigned to an ISSG and not an integration system misrepresents Workday’s design, as ISUs are explicitly configured in integration systems (e.g., EIB, Core Connector) to run processes.
Why It Doesn’t Fit: ISUs are integral to integration systems, providing credentials for API calls or data exchange. Excluding assignment to integration systems contradicts Workday’s integration framework.
Final Verification
The correct answer is Option C, as Workday limits an ISU to a single integration system to ensure security, accountability, and clarity in integration operations. This aligns with the principle of least privilege, where ISUs are scoped narrowly to avoid overexposure. For example, when setting up a Core Connector: Job Postings (as in Question 25), you assign an ISU specifically for that integration, not multiple ones, unless reconfiguring for a different purpose, which is atypical.
Supporting Documentation
The reasoning is based on Workday Pro Integrations security practices, including:
Workday Community documentation on creating and managing ISUs and integration systems.
Tutorials on configuring EIBs, Core Connectors, and web services, which show assigning ISUs to specific integrations (e.g., Workday Advanced Studio Tutorial).
Integration security overviews from implementation partners (e.g., NetIQ, Microsoft Learn, Reco.ai) emphasizing one ISU per integration for security.
Community discussions on Reddit and Workday forums reinforcing that ISUs are tied to single integrations for auditability (r/workday on Reddit).
This question focuses on the purpose of granting an Integration System User (ISU) modify access to the Integration Event domain via an Integration System Security Group (ISSG) in Workday Pro Integrations. Let’s analyze the role of the ISU, the Integration Event domain, and evaluate each option to determine the correct answer.
Understanding ISUs, ISSGs, and the Integration Event Domain
Integration System User (ISU): As described in previous questions, an ISU is a service account for integrations, used to authenticate and execute integration processes in Workday. ISUs are assigned to ISSGs to inherit security permissions and are linked to specific integration systems (e.g., EIBs, Core Connectors) for execution.
Integration System Security Group (ISSG): An ISSG is a security group that defines the permissions for ISUs, controlling what data and functionalities they can access or modify. ISSGs can be unconstrained (access all instances) or constrained (access specific instances based on context). Permissions are granted via domain security policies, such as "Get," "Put," "View," or "Modify," applied to Workday domains.
Integration Event Domain: In Workday, the Integration Event domain (or Integration Events security domain) governs access to integration-related activities, such as managing integration events, schedules, attributes, mappings, and logs. This domain is critical for integrations, as it controls the ability to create, modify, or view integration configurations and runtime events.
"Modify" access to the Integration Event domain allows the ISU to make changes to integration configurations, such as attributes (e.g., file names, endpoints), mappings (e.g., data transformations), and event settings (e.g., schedules or triggers).
This domain does not typically grant UI access or ownership of schedules but focuses on configuration and runtime control.
Purpose of Granting Modify Access: Granting an ISU modify access to the Integration Event domain via an ISSG enables the ISU to perform configuration tasks for integrations, ensuring the integration system can adapt or update its settings programmatically. This is essential for automated integrations that need to adjust mappings, attributes, or event triggers without manual intervention. However, ISUs are not designed for UI interaction or administrative ownership, as they are service accounts.
Evaluating Each Option
Let’s assess each option based on Workday’s security and integration model:
Option A: To have the ISU own the integration schedule.
Analysis: This is incorrect. ISUs do not "own" integration schedules or any other integration components. Ownership is not a concept applicable to ISUs, which are service accounts for execution, not administrative entities. Integration schedules are configured within the integration system (e.g., EIB or Core Connector) and managed by administrators or users with appropriate security roles, not by ISUs. Modify access to the Integration Event domain allows changes to schedules, but it doesn’t imply ownership.
Why It Doesn’t Fit: ISUs lack administrative control or ownership; they execute based on permissions, not manage schedules as owners. This misinterprets the ISU’s role.
Option B: To let the ISU configure integration attributes and maps.
Analysis: This is correct. Granting modify access to the Integration Event domain allows the ISU to alter integration configurations, including attributes (e.g., file names, endpoints, timeouts) and mappings (e.g., data transformations like worker subtype mappings from Question 25). The Integration Event domain governs these configuration elements, and "Modify" permission enables the ISU to update them programmatically during integration execution. This is a standard use case for ISUs in automated integrations, ensuring flexibility without manual intervention.
Why It Fits: Workday’s documentation and training materials indicate that the Integration Event domain controls integration configuration tasks. For example, in an EIB or Core Connector, an ISU with modify access can adjust mappings or attributes, as seen in tutorials on integration setup (Workday Advanced Studio Tutorial). This aligns with the ISU’s role as a service account for dynamic configuration.
Option C: To log into the user interface as the ISU and launch the integration.
Analysis: This is incorrect. ISUs are not intended for UI interaction. When creating an ISU, a best practice is to disable UI sessions (e.g., set "Allow UI Sessions" to "No") and configure a session timeout of 0 minutes to prevent expiration during automation. ISUs operate programmatically via APIs or integration systems, not through the Workday UI. Modify access to the Integration Event domain enables configuration changes, not UI login or manual launching.
Why It Doesn’t Fit: Logging into the UI contradicts ISU design, as they are service accounts, not user accounts. This option misrepresents their purpose.
Option D: To build the integration system as the ISU.
Analysis: This is incorrect. ISUs do not "build" integration systems; they execute or configure existing integrations based on permissions. Building an integration system (e.g., creating EIBs, Core Connectors, or web services) is an administrative task performed by users with appropriate security roles (e.g., Integration Build domain access), not ISUs. Modify access to the Integration Event domain allows configuration changes, not the creation or design of integration systems.
Why It Doesn’t Fit: ISUs lack the authority or capability to build integrations; they are for runtime execution and configuration, not development or design.
Final Verification
The correct answer is Option B, as granting an ISU modify access to the Integration Event domain via an ISSG enables it to configure integration attributes (e.g., file names, endpoints) and maps (e.g., data transformations), which are critical for dynamic integration operations. This aligns with Workday’s security model, where ISUs handle automated tasks within defined permissions, not UI interaction, ownership, or system building.
For example, in the Core Connector: Job Postings from Question 25, an ISU with modify access to Integration Event could update the filename pattern or worker subtype mappings, ensuring the integration adapts to vendor requirements without manual intervention. This is consistent with Workday’s design for integration automation.
Supporting Documentation
The reasoning is based on Workday Pro Integrations security practices, including:
Workday Community documentation on ISUs, ISSGs, and domain security (e.g., Integration Event domain permissions).
Tutorials on configuring EIBs and Core Connectors, showing ISUs modifying attributes and mappings (Workday Advanced Studio Tutorial).
Integration security overviews from implementation partners (e.g., NetIQ, Microsoft Learn, Reco.ai) detailing domain access for ISUs.
Community discussions on Reddit and Workday forums reinforcing ISU roles for configuration, not UI or ownership (r/workday on Reddit).
Refer to the following scenario to answer the question below.
You have configured a Core Connector: Worker integration, which utilizes the following basic configuration:
• Integration field attributes are configured to output the Position Title and Business Title fields from the Position Data section.
• Integration Population Eligibility uses the field Is Manager which returns true if the worker holds a manager role.
• Transaction Log service has been configured to Subscribe to specific Transaction Types: Position Edit Event.
You launch your integration with the following date launch parameters (Date format of MM/DD/YYYY):
• As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM
• Effective Date: 05/25/2024
• Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM
• Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024
To test your integration, you made a change to a worker named Jeff Gordon who is not assigned to the manager role. You perform an Edit Position on Jeff Gordon and update their business title to a new value. Jeff Gordon's worker history shows the Edit Position Event as being successfully completed with an effective date of 05/24/2024 and an Entry Moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM however Jeff Gordon does not show up in your output.
What configuration element would have to be modified for the integration to include Jeff Gordon in the output?
Transaction log subscription
Integration Population Eligibility
Date launch parameters
Integration Field Attributes
The scenario describes a Core Connector: Worker integration with specific configurations, and a test case where Jeff Gordon’s data doesn’t appear in the output despite an Edit Position event. Let’s analyze why Jeff Gordon is excluded and what needs to change:
Current Configuration:
Integration Field Attributes: Outputs Position Title and Business Title from Position Data.
Integration Population Eligibility: Filters workers where "Is Manager" = True (only managers).
Transaction Log Service: Subscribes to "Position Edit Event" transactions.
Launch Parameters:
As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM
Effective Date: 05/25/2024
Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM
Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024
Test Case:
Worker: Jeff Gordon (not a manager).
Action: Edit Position, updating Business Title.
Event Details: Effective Date 05/24/2024, Entry Moment 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM.
Result: Jeff Gordon does not appear in the output.
Analysis:
Date Parameters: The integration captures changes between the Last Successful As of Entry Moment (05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM) and the current As of Entry Moment (05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM). Jeff’s Edit Position event (Entry Moment 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM) falls within this range, and its Effective Date (05/24/2024) is before the integration’s Effective Date (05/25/2024), making it eligible from a date perspective.
Transaction Log: Subscribed to "Position Edit Event," which matches Jeff’s action (Edit Position), so the event type is correctly captured.
Field Attributes: Outputs Position Title and Business Title, and Jeff’s update to Business Title aligns with these fields.
Population Eligibility: Filters for "Is Manager" = True. Jeff Gordon is explicitly noted as "not assigned to the manager role," meaning "Is Manager" = False for him. This filter excludes Jeff from the population, regardless of the event or date eligibility.
Why Jeff is Excluded:The Integration Population Eligibility restriction ("Is Manager" = True) prevents Jeff Gordon from being included, as he isn’t a manager. This filter applies to the entire worker population before events or fields are considered, overriding other conditions.
Option Analysis:
A. Transaction Log Subscription: Incorrect. The subscription already includes "Position Edit Event," which matches Jeff’s action. Modifying this wouldn’t address the population filter.
B. Integration Population Eligibility: Correct. Changing this to include non-managers (e.g., removing the "Is Manager" = True filter or adjusting it to include all employees) would allow Jeff Gordon to appear in the output.
C. Date Launch Parameters: Incorrect. Jeff’s event (05/24/2024) falls within the date range, so the parameters are not the issue.
D. Integration Field Attributes: Incorrect. The attributes already include Business Title, which Jeff updated, so this configuration is irrelevant to his exclusion.
Modification Needed:Adjust the Integration Population Eligibility to either:
Remove the "Is Manager" = True filter to include all workers, or
Modify it to align with the scenario’s intent (e.g., "Worker Type equals Employee") if managers were an unintended restriction.
Implementation:
Edit the Core Connector: Worker integration.
Use the related action Configure Integration Population Eligibility.
Remove or adjust the "Is Manager" = True condition.
Relaunch the integration and verify Jeff Gordon appears in the output.
References from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide:
Core Connectors & Document Transformation: Section on "Configuring Integration Population Eligibility" explains how eligibility filters the worker population before event processing.
Integration System Fundamentals: Details how population scoping interacts with event subscriptions and launch parameters.
Refer to the following scenario to answer the question below.
You have been asked to build an integration using the Core Connector: Worker template and should leverage the Data Initialization Service (DIS). The integration will be used to export a full file (no change detection) for employees only and will include personal data.
What configuration is required to ensure that when outputting phone number only the home phone number is included in the output?
Configure an integration map to map the phone type.
Include the phone type integration field attribute.
Configure the phone type integration attribute.
Configure an integration field override to include phone type.
The scenario involves a Core Connector: Worker integration using DIS to export a full file of employee personal data, with the requirement to output only the home phone number when including phone data. Workday’s "Phone Number" field is multi-instance, meaning a worker can have multiple phone types (e.g., Home, Work, Mobile). Let’s determine the configuration:
Requirement:Filter the multi-instance "Phone Number" field to include only the "Home" phone number in the output file. This involves specifying which instance of the phone data to extract.
Integration Field Attributes:In Core Connectors, Integration Field Attributes allow you to refine how multi-instance fields are handled in the output. For the "Phone Number" field, you can set an attribute like "Phone Type" to "Home" to ensure only home phone numbers are included. This is a field-level configuration that filters instances without requiring a calculated field or override.
Option Analysis:
A. Configure an integration map to map the phone type: Incorrect. Integration Maps transform field values (e.g., "United States" to "USA"), not filter multi-instance data like selecting a specific phone type.
B. Include the phone type integration field attribute: Correct. This configures the "Phone Number" field to output only instances where the phone type is "Home," directly meeting the requirement.
C. Configure the phone type integration attribute: Incorrect. "Integration attribute" refers to integration-level settings (e.g., file format), not field-specific configurations. The correct term is "integration field attribute."
D. Configure an integration field override to include phone type: Incorrect. Integration Field Overrides are used to replace a field’s value with a calculated field or custom value, not to filter multi-instance data like phone type.
Implementation:
Edit the Core Connector: Worker integration.
Navigate to the Integration Field Attributes section for the "Phone Number" field.
Set the "Phone Type" attribute to "Home" (or equivalent reference ID for Home phone).
Test the output file to confirm only home phone numbers are included.
References from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide:
Core Connectors & Document Transformation: Section on "Integration Field Attributes" explains filtering multi-instance fields like phone numbers by type.
Integration System Fundamentals: Notes how Core Connectors handle multi-instance data with field-level attributes.
What XSL component is required to execute valid transformation instructions in the XSLT code?
xsl:template
xsl:apply-template
xsl:call-template
xsl:output
The
“Without at least one
Why the others are incorrect:
B.
C.
D.
Refer to the following scenario to answer the question below.
You have configured a Core Connector: Worker integration, which utilizes the following basic configuration:
• Integration field attributes are configured to output the Position Title and Business Title fields from the Position Data section.
• Integration Population Eligibility uses the field Is Manager which returns true if the worker holds a manager role.
• Transaction Log service has been configured to Subscribe to specific Transaction Types: Position Edit Event. You launch your integration with the following date launch parameters (Date format of MM/DD/YYYY):
• As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM
• Effective Date: 05/25/2024
• Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM
• Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024
To test your integration you made a change to a worker named Jared Ellis who is assigned to the manager role for the IT Help Desk department. You perform an Edit Position on Jared and update the Job Profile of the position to a new value. Jared Ellis' worker history shows the Edit Position Event as being successfully completed with an effective date of 05/24/2024 and an Entry Moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM however Jared Ellis does not show up in your output.
What configuration element would have to be modified for the integration to include Jared Ellis in the output?
Integration Population Eligibility
Integration Field Attributes
Date launch parameters
Transaction log subscription
The scenario describes a Core Connector: Worker integration configured to output specific fields (Position Title and Business Title) for workers who meet the Integration Population Eligibility criteria (Is Manager = true) and where the Transaction Log service is subscribed to the "Position Edit Event." The integration is launched with specific date parameters, and a test edit is made to Jared Ellis’ position, who is a manager. However, despite the edit being completed with an effective date of 05/24/2024 and an entry moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM, Jared does not appear in the output. Let’s analyze why and determine the correct configuration element to modify.
In Workday integrations, the Core Connector: Worker uses change detection mechanisms to identify and process updates based on the Transaction Log and date launch parameters. The Transaction Log service captures events such as the "Position Edit Event" and records them with an Effective Date (when the change takes effect) and an Entry Moment (when the change was entered into the system). The integration’s date launch parameters define the time window for which changes are retrieved:
As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM – This specifies the latest point in time for when changes were entered into Workday.
Effective Date: 05/25/2024 – This defines the date for which the changes are effective.
Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM – This indicates the starting point for entry moments from the last successful run.
Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024 – This indicates the starting point for effective dates from the last successful run.
For an incremental run (like this one, since "Last Successful" parameters are provided), 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 where 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’ edit:
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.
Effective Date: 05/24/2024 – This falls within the range of 05/23/2024 to 05/25/2024.
At first glance, Jared’s edit seems to fit the date parameter window. However, the issue lies in the time component of the date launch parameters. Workday interprets these parameters with precision down to the second. The As of Entry Moment is set to 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM (midnight), which is the very start of May 25, 2024. Jared’s Entry Moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM is correctly within the range from 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM to 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM. However, the Transaction Log subscription to "Position Edit Event" relies on the change being fully processed and available in the log by the time the integration runs.
The integration might have run at a point where the effective date window or the subscription logic did not correctly capture the event due to a mismatch in how the Effective Date is evaluated against the Last Successful Effective Date. Specifically, if the integration only processes changes with an Effective Date strictly after the Last Successful Effective Date (05/23/2024) up to the Effective Date (05/25/2024), and the logic excludes changes effective exactly on 05/24/2024 due to a boundary condition or a timing issue in the transaction log, Jared’s change might not be picked up.
To resolve this, modifying the Date launch parameters is necessary. Adjusting the As of Entry Moment to a later time (e.g., 05/25/2024 11:59:59 PM) or ensuring the Effective Date range explicitly includes all changes effective on or after 05/23/2024 through 05/25/2024 would ensure Jared’s edit is captured. This adjustment aligns the time window to include all relevant transactions logged before the integration run.
Let’s evaluate the other options:
A. Integration Population Eligibility: This is set to "Is Manager = true," and Jared is a manager. This filter is working correctly and does not need modification.
B. Integration Field Attributes: These are configured to output Position Title and Business Title, and the edit was to the Job Profile (part of Position Data). The fields are appropriately configured, so this is not the issue.
D. Transaction Log Subscription: The subscription is set to "Position Edit Event," which matches Jared’s edit. The subscription type is correct, so no change is needed here.
Thus, the issue stems from the date launch parameters not fully encompassing the timing of Jared’s edit in the Transaction Log, making C. Date launch parameters the correct answer.
Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References
Workday Integrations Study Guide: Core Connector: Worker – Section on "Change Detection Using Transaction Log" explains how Transaction Log subscriptions filter events based on date parameters.
Workday Integrations Study Guide: Launch Parameters – Details the role of "As of Entry Moment" and "Effective Date" in defining the scope of incremental runs.
Workday Integrations Study Guide: Incremental Processing – Describes how "Last Successful" parameters establish the baseline for detecting changes in subsequent runs.
Which features must all XSLT files contain to be considered valid?
A template, a prefix, and a header
A root element, namespace, and at least one transformation
A header, a footer, and a namespace
A root element, namespace, and at least one template
A valid XSLT file must include the following key components:
Root Element:
Namespace Declaration: Usually xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform "
At Least One
From W3C and Workday documentation:
“A valid XSLT file must contain a stylesheet root element, a namespace, and at least one template to be considered executable.”
Why others are incorrect:
A. Prefix and header are not structural requirements.
B. "Transformation" is vague; it's the template that implements it.
C. Headers and footers are not required or defined elements in XSLT.
You have been asked to create an integration using the Core Connector: Worker with DIS template. The vendor has requested that you only include employees who are based in the San Francisco area that are on leave.
How do you configure your integration so that only workers who meet the requirements are included in the output file?
Configure a Boolean field for San Francisco workers on leave in the field overrides.
Configure a Boolean field for Population Eligibility for San Francisco workers on leave.
Configure the integration attributes to include workers in San Francisco on leave.
Configure a Boolean field for San Francisco workers on leave under the field attributes.
When using Core Connector: Worker with DIS, to restrict the population to employees who:
Are on leave, and
Are located in San Francisco
You must configure Population Eligibility, which is the only place to filter the worker population included in the connector output.
From Workday Pro documentation:
“The Population Eligibility section defines which workers are eligible for extraction in the integration based on location, status, organization, and other conditions. Boolean calculated fields can be used here to define complex eligibility criteria.”
In this case:
Create a Boolean calculated field that returns true for “On Leave AND Location = San Francisco”
Use that field in Population Eligibility
Why the others are incorrect:
A, D. Field Overrides and Field Attributes only modify what data is extracted—not who is included.
C. Integration Attributes don’t control population filtering.
Refer to the following XML to answer the question below.
You are an integration developer and need to write XSLT to transform the output of an EIB which is making a request to the Get Job Profiles web service operation. The root template of your XSLT matches on the
What XPath syntax would be used to select the value of the wd:Job_Code element when the
wd:Job_Profile/wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code
wd:Job_Profile_Data[@wd:Job_Code]
wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code
wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']
As an integration developer working with Workday, you are tasked with transforming the output of an Enterprise Interface Builder (EIB) that calls the Get_Job_Profiles web service operation. The provided XML shows the response from this operation, and you need to write XSLT to select the value of the
Understanding the XML and Requirement
The XML snippet provided is a SOAP response from the Get_Job_Profiles web service operation in Workday, using the namespace xmlns:wd="urn:com.workday/bsvc" and version wd:version="v43.0". Key elements relevant to the question include:
The root element is
It contains
Within
The task is to select the value of
Analysis of Options
Let’s evaluate each option based on the XML structure and XPath syntax rules:
Option A: wd:Job_Profile/wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code
This XPath starts from wd:Job_Profile and navigates to wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code. However, in the XML,
However, since the template matches
Option B: wd:Job_Profile_Data[@wd:Job_Code]
This XPath uses an attribute selector ([@wd:Job_Code]) to filter
Option C: wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code
This XPath starts from wd:Job_Profile_Data (a direct child of
Concise and appropriate for the context.
Directly selects the value "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" when used with
Matches the XML structure, as
This is the most straightforward and correct option for selecting the
Option D: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']
This XPath navigates to
The XPath wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] selects the
Why Option C is Correct
Option C, wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code, is the correct XPath syntax because:
It starts from the context node
It is concise and aligns with standard XPath navigation in XSLT, avoiding unnecessary redundancy (unlike Option A) or incorrect attribute selectors (unlike Option B).
It matches the XML structure, where
When used with
Practical Example in XSLT
Here’s how this might look in your XSLT:
xml
WrapCopy
This would output "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" for the
Verification with Workday Documentation
The Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide and SOAP API Reference (available via Workday Community) detail the structure of the Get_Job_Profiles response and how to use XPath in XSLT for transformations. The XML structure shows
Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References
Section: XSLT Transformations in EIBs – Describes using XSLT to transform web service responses, including selecting elements with XPath.
Section: Workday Web Services – Details the Get_Job_Profiles operation and its XML output structure, including
Section: XPath Syntax – Explains how to navigate XML hierarchies in Workday XSLT, using relative paths like wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code from a
Workday Community SOAP API Reference – Provides examples of XPath navigation for Workday web service responses.
Option C is the verified answer, as it correctly selects the
Refer to the following XML to answer the question below.
Within the template which matches on wd:Report_Entry, you would like to conditionally process the wd:Education_Group elements by using an
wd:Education_Group[wd:Degree='MBA']
wd:Education_Group/wd:Degree='MBA'
wd:Report_Entry/wd:Education_Group/ wd:Degree='MBA' 1:Degree='MBA'
wd:Report_Entry/wd:Education_Group[wd:Degree='MBA' 1:Degree='MBA']
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
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
XML Structure Alignment: Based on the provided XML snippet, wd:Education_Group contains wd:Education and wd:Degree child elements (e.g.,
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
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
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.
