MCPA-Level-1-Maintenance MuleSoft Certified Platform Architect - Level 1 MAINTENANCE Questions and Answers

Explanation

Correct Answer: Unit tests (Whitebox)

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

Explanation

Correct Answer: The CloudHub shared load balancer

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

The scenario in this question can be split as below:

>> There are 3 CloudHub workers (So, there are already good number of workers to handle high volume of requests)

>> The workers are not using static IP addresses (So, one CANNOT use customer load-balancing solutions without static IPs)

>> Looking for most cost-effective component to load balance the client requests among the workers.

Based on the above details given in the scenario:

>> Runtime autoscaling is NOT at all cost-effective as it incurs extra cost. Most over, there are already 3 workers running which is a good number.

>> We cannot go for a customer-hosted load balancer as it is also NOT most cost-effective (needs custom load balancer to maintain and licensing) and same time the Mule App is not having Static IP Addresses which limits from going with custom load balancing.

>> An API Proxy is irrelevant there as it has no role to play w.r.t handling high volumes or load balancing.

So, the only right option to go with and fits the purpose of scenario being most cost-effective is - using a CloudHub Shared Load Balancer.

Explanation

Correct Answer: System Layer

The APIs used in an API-led approach to connectivity fall into three categories:

System APIs – these usually access the core systems of record and provide a means of insulating the user from the complexity or any changes to the underlying systems. Once built, many users, can access data without any need to learn the underlying systems and can reuse these APIs in multiple projects.

Process APIs – These APIs interact with and shape data within a single system or across systems (breaking down data silos) and are created here without a dependence on the source systems from which that data originates, as well as the target channels through which that data is delivered.

Experience APIs – Experience APIs are the means by which data can be reconfigured so that it is most easily consumed by its intended audience, all from a common data source, rather than setting up separate point-to-point integrations for each channel. An Experience API is usually created with API-first design principles where the API is designed for the specific user experience in mind.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Search Anypoint exchange for a suitable existing fallback API, and then implement invocations to this fallback API in addition to the order API

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

>> It is not ideal and good approach, until unless there is a pre-approved agreement with the API clients that they will receive a HTTP 3xx temporary redirect status code and they have to implement fallback logic their side to call another API.

>> Creating separate entry of same Order API in API manager would just create an another instance of it on top of same API implementation. So, it does NO GOOD by using clone od same API as a fallback API. Fallback API should be ideally a different API implementation that is not same as primary one.

>> There is NO option currently provided by Anypoint HTTP Connector that allows us to invoke a fallback API when we receive certain HTTP status codes in response.

The only statement TRUE in the given options is to Search Anypoint exchange for a suitable existing fallback API, and then implement invocations to this fallback API in addition to the order API.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Convince the development team of the product API to adopt the API data model of the Order API such that integration logic of the Order API can work with one consistent internal data model

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

Key details to note from the given scenario:

>> Power relationship between Order API and Product API is customer/supplier

So, as per below rules of "Power Relationships", the caller (in this case Order API) would request for features to the called (Product API team) and the Product API team would need to accomodate those requests.

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.

Explanation

Correct Answer: API-led connectivity is not just an architecture or technology but also a way to organize people and processes for efficient IT delivery in the organization.

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

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: 4.0.0

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

As per semver.org semantic versioning specification:

Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the:

- MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes.

- MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards compatible manner.

- PATCH version when you make backwards compatible bug fixes.

As per the scenario given in the question, the API implementation is completely changing its behavior. Although the format of the time is still being maintained as hh:mm:ss and there is no change in schema w.r.t format, the API will start functioning different after this change as the times are going to come completely different.

Example: Before the change, say, time is going as 09:00:00 representing the PST. Now on, after the change, the same time will go as 18:00:00 as Central European Summer Time is 9 hours ahead of Pacific Time.

>> This may lead to some uncertain behavior on API clients depending on how they are handling the times in the API response. All the API clients need to be informed that the API functionality is going to change and will return in CEST format. So, this considered as a MAJOR change and the version of API for this new change would be 4.0.0