Workday Workday-Pro-Integrations Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

When creating a Date Difference calculated field in Workday, both dates must exist on the same business object. If they are on different business objects, you need to first bring the second date onto the primary object. To do that, you use a:

Lookup Related Value calculated field — this allows you to retrieve a field (like a date) from a related business object, so it can then be used in further calculations.

Example scenario:

You want to subtract Hire Date (on the Worker object) from Dependent’s Birth Date (on the Dependent object).

These are on different objects → use Lookup Related Value to pull the second date into the current object context.

Then, create the Date Difference using both dates on the same object.

Why other options are incorrect:

B. Build Date creates a synthetic date, not for bridging objects.

C. Lookup Date Rollup rolls up values across multiple related objects, not typically used for 1-to-1 value bridging.

D. Lookup Value as of Date is used for time-sensitive lookups (e.g., point-in-time values), not structural bridging.

In XSLT, the processor applies transformation rules by matching nodes using XPath expressions inside statements.

“Templates define the rule, and XPath expressions determine which nodes they apply to.”

This is the foundational mechanism by which XSLT processes XML data.

Why the others are incorrect:

B. The element defines scope, not node matching.

C. invokes a named template but does not itself match nodes.

D. Namespace prefixes are used within XPath, but node matching is based on XPath.

In Workday integrations, XSLT is used to transform XML data, such as the output from an Enterprise Interface Builder (EIB) or a web service-enabled report, into a desired format for third-party systems. In this scenario, you need to write XSLT to process wd:Dependents_Group elements and output a relationship code based on the value of the wd:Relationship attribute or element. The requirement is to output "SP" for a "Spouse" relationship, "CH" for a "Child" relationship, and "OTHER" for any other relationship, using an statement within a template matching wd:Dependents_Group.

Here’s why option C is correct:

XSLT Structure: The element in XSLT provides conditional logic similar to a switch statement. It evaluates conditions in elements sequentially, executing the first matching condition, and uses for any case that doesn’t match.

Relationship as an Attribute: Based on the provided XML snippet, wd:Relationship is an attribute (e.g., Spouse within wd:Dependents_Group). However, in Workday XML for integrations, wd:Relationship is often represented as an attribute (@wd:Relationship) rather than a child element, especially in contexts like dependent data in reports. The syntax @wd:Relationship in the test attribute of correctly references this attribute, aligning with Workday’s typical XML structure for such data.

Condition Matching:

The first SP checks if the wd:Relationship attribute equals "Spouse" and outputs "SP" if true.

The second CH checks if the wd:Relationship attribute equals "Child" and outputs "CH" if true.

The OTHER handles all other cases, outputting "OTHER" if the relationship is neither "Spouse" nor "Child."

Context in Template: Since the template matches on wd:Dependents_Group, the test conditions operate on the current wd:Dependents_Group element and its attributes, ensuring the correct relationship code is output for each dependent. The XML snippet shows wd:Relationship as an element, but Workday documentation and integration practices often standardize it as an attribute in XSLT transformations, making @wd:Relationship appropriate.

Why not the other options?

A.

xml

WrapCopy

SP

CH

OTHER

This assumes wd:Relationship is a child element of wd:Dependents_Group, not an attribute. The XML snippet shows wd:Relationship as an element, but in Workday integrations, XSLT often expects attributes for efficiency and consistency, especially in report outputs. Using wd:Relationship without @ would not match the attribute-based structure commonly used, making it incorrect for this context.

B.

xml

WrapCopy

SP

CH

OTHER

This correctly uses @wd:Relationship for an attribute but has a logical flaw: if wd:Relationship='Child', the second would output "CH," but the order of conditions matters. However, the primary issue is that it doesn’t match the exact structure or intent as clearly as option C, and Workday documentation often specifies exact attribute-based conditions like those in option C.

D.

xml

WrapCopy

SP

CH

OTHER

This uses an absolute path (/wd:Relationship), which searches for a wd:Relationship element at the root of the XML document, not within the current wd:Dependents_Group context. This would not work correctly for processing dependents in the context of the template matching wd:Dependents_Group, making it incorrect.

To implement this in XSLT:

Within your template matching wd:Dependents_Group, you would include the statement from option C to evaluate the wd:Relationship attribute and output the appropriate relationship code ("SP," "CH," or "OTHER") based on its value. This ensures the transformation aligns with Workday’s XML structure and integration requirements for processing dependent data in an EIB or web service-enabled report, even though the provided XML shows wd:Relationship as an element—XSLT transformations often normalize to attributes for consistency.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: Section on "XSLT Transformations for Workday Integrations" – Details the use of , , , and XPath for conditional logic in XSLT, including handling attributes like @wd:Relationship.

Workday EIB and Web Services Guide: Chapter on "XML and XSLT for Report Data" – Explains the structure of Workday XML (e.g., wd:Dependents_Group, @wd:Relationship) and how to use XSLT to transform dependent data, including attribute-based conditions.

Workday Reporting and Analytics Guide: Section on "Web Service-Enabled Reports" – Covers integrating report outputs with XSLT for transformations, including examples of conditional logic for relationship codes.