Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Salesforce B2B Commerce for Developers Accredited Professional (AP-202) Exam - Topic 2 Question 43 Discussion

Northern Tail Outfitters (NTO) is converting an existing aura component into a Lightning Web Component. The aura component has the following source code:What is the equivalent of this code in a Lightning Web Component?A)B)C)D)
B) Option B
A) Option A
C) Option C
D) Option D

Salesforce B2B Commerce for Developers Accredited Professional (AP-202) Exam - Topic 2 Question 43 Discussion

Actual exam question for Salesforce's B2B Commerce for Developers Accredited Professional (AP-202) exam
Question #: 43
Topic #: 2
[All B2B Commerce for Developers Accredited Professional (AP-202) Questions]

Northern Tail Outfitters (NTO) is converting an existing aura component into a Lightning Web Component. The aura component has the following source code:

What is the equivalent of this code in a Lightning Web Component?

A)

B)

C)

D)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

The equivalent of this code in a Lightning web component is option B. Option B uses the @api decorator to expose firstName as a public property of the Lightning web component and communicate it with other components or services. The @api decorator is a decorator that marks a property or method as public, which means that it can be accessed by other components or services that use or consume this component. The @api decorator also makes the property reactive, which means that it can track changes and update the component accordingly. In option B, firstName is exposed as a public property using the @api decorator and passed to the child element using an attribute. Option A is incorrect because it uses an invalid syntax for exposing firstName as a public property. The @api decorator should be used before the property declaration, not after it. Option C is incorrect because it uses an invalid syntax for exposing firstName as a public property. The @api decorator should be used with parentheses, not without them. Option D is incorrect because it uses an invalid syntax for exposing firstName as a public property. The @api decorator should be used with camel case, not with hyphens. Salesforce Reference: Lightning Web Components Developer Guide: Communicate with Properties, Lightning Web Components Developer Guide: Decorators


by Lai at Oct 17, 2023, 02:47 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium B2B Commerce for Developers Accredited Professional (AP-202) Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Barrie
8 months ago
Just a heads up, this conversion can be tricky!
upvoted 0 times
...
Dottie
8 months ago
I agree, Option A seems off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefan
8 months ago
Wait, are we sure about that?
upvoted 0 times
...
Barbra
9 months ago
I think Option C is more accurate.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ahmed
9 months ago
Option B looks like the best fit!
upvoted 0 times
...
Vallie
9 months ago
I’m a bit confused about the structure. I know LWC is more modular, but I can’t remember how that translates to this specific code.
upvoted 0 times
...
Donte
9 months ago
I think I recall that LWC uses a different way to handle attributes compared to Aura. I’m leaning towards option B, but I could be mixing things up.
upvoted 0 times
...
Raymon
9 months ago
This question feels similar to one we did in class about event handling in LWC. I think it might be option C, but I’m not completely confident.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janella
9 months ago
I remember we practiced converting Aura components to LWC, but I’m not sure about the specific syntax differences.
upvoted 0 times
...
Makeda
10 months ago
This is a good test of my understanding of the differences between Aura and LWC. I'll need to pay close attention to the details and make sure I don't miss any important nuances in the translation. I'll take my time and work through this methodically.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maryann
10 months ago
Okay, I think I've got a handle on this. The Aura code is using some custom attributes and event handling, so I'll need to find the LWC equivalents for those. I'll carefully evaluate each option to see which one best matches the Aura implementation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lamonica
10 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The Aura code has some unfamiliar syntax, and I'll need to make sure I understand how to properly translate it to LWC. I'll review the options closely and try to identify the key differences.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tomoko
10 months ago
This looks like a straightforward conversion from Aura to LWC. I'll carefully review the Aura code and compare it to the options to determine the equivalent LWC implementation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Phuong
10 months ago
Yeah, I agree with Sarah. The key is to isolate that fictitious owner account as much as possible, while still allowing the manual review process to work. Putting it at the top of the hierarchy or giving it broad permissions doesn't seem like the right approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Charisse
10 months ago
Okay, let's think this through step-by-step. The question is asking about the default importance value for dependent services' health scores. I'll need to consider each option and see which one best fits that description.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kimberely
10 months ago
Isn't it common to also ensure they know how to submit service issues? I think B is crucial at this point.
upvoted 0 times
...
Emelda
10 months ago
I'm a bit confused by this question. Isn't the goal to avoid detection, not defeat the IDS? I'm not sure any of these options are a good idea - they all seem like they could cause more harm than good. Maybe I'm missing something here.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel