Sure Pass Exam Development-Lifecycle-and-Deployment-Architect PDF

The best way to stop the rollbacks from happening is to ensure report metadata is exported daily and that it is merged into the developer branches before the next release. This way, the reports and dashboards will be up to date and consistent across all environments. Using a third-party data warehouse is not a solution, as it does not address the root cause of the rollbacks. Removing the executive’s ability to change reports is not a good practice, as it limits their flexibility and autonomy. Backing up and reimporting the reports before and after the release is not a reliable or scalable solution, as it can introduce errors and inconsistencies.

The best option is to ensure the sandbox will be on the release preview, which means it will be upgraded to the new platform release before the production environment. This will allow the team to test the deployment in a realistic scenario and catch any potential issues. Option A is not ideal, as the staging and production support sandboxes will not be on the same platform version as the production environment. Option C is also not ideal, as the production support sandbox will not be on the same platform version as the production environment. Option D is risky, as the staging sandbox refresh may not complete in time for the go-live.

 Generating a code review checklist to ensure consistency between reviews and different reviewers and conducting a review that combines human efforts and automatic checks by the tool to detect all flaws are two recommended practices to follow when conducting secure code reviews, as they can help improve the quality and security of the code and reduce the risk of vulnerabilities or errors. Focusing on the aggregated reviews to save time and effort, to remove the need to continuously monitor each meaningful change is not a good practice, as it can miss important details or changes that can affect the code functionality or security. Using the code review software as the tool to flag which developer has committed the errors, so the developer can improve is not a constructive way of conducting code reviews, as it can create a blame culture and discourage collaboration and learning. See Secure Coding Guidelines for more details.

The best option is to send a package.xml file with associated metadata in a .zip file to the Release Management team, as this will allow them to use the Metadata API to deploy the components to the production org. Option A is not feasible, as change sets cannot be downloaded from sandboxes. Option B is not sufficient, as the readMetadata call only retrieves the metadata information, not the actual components. Option C is not reliable, as the audit trail may not capture all the changes made in the sandbox.