Salesforce Certified Platform Development Lifecycle and Deployment Architect (Plat-Arch-202) Exam - Topic 4 Question 25 Discussion

Actual exam question for Salesforce's Salesforce Certified Platform Development Lifecycle and Deployment Architect (Plat-Arch-202) exam

Question #: 25
Topic #: 4

[All Salesforce Certified Platform Development Lifecycle and Deployment Architect (Plat-Arch-202) Questions]

Universal Containers CUC) has decided to improve the quality of work by the development teams. As part of the effort, UC has acquired some code review software licenses to help the developers with code quality.

Which are two recommended practices to follow when conducting secure code reviews? Choose 2 answers

AGenerate a code review checklist to ensure consistency between reviews and different reviewers.

BFocus on the aggregated reviews to save time and effort, to remove the need to continuously monitor each meaningful change.

CConduct a review that combines human efforts and automatic checks by the tool to detect all flaws.

DUse the code review software as the tool to flag which developer has committed the errors, so the developer can improve.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

by Merlyn at Oct 16, 2023, 06:22 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Salesforce Certified Platform Development Lifecycle and Deployment Architect (Plat-Arch-202) Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Dino

5 months ago

Using software to track errors is a good idea for improvement.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cassie

5 months ago

Surprised that some still think flagging developers is helpful.

upvoted 0 times

...

Galen

5 months ago

Combining human checks with tools is definitely the way to go!

upvoted 0 times

...

Ryan

6 months ago

I disagree, focusing on aggregated reviews can miss important details.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cathrine

6 months ago

A checklist is a must for consistent reviews!

upvoted 0 times

...

Cathrine

6 months ago

I recall something about not blaming developers directly in reviews. Using the tool to flag errors could create a negative environment, so I’m hesitant about option D.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dylan

6 months ago

I feel like combining human efforts with automated checks is crucial. It makes sense to catch more flaws that way, so I would lean towards option C.

upvoted 0 times

...

Casandra

6 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I think focusing on aggregated reviews might not be the best approach. It seems like we should pay attention to individual changes instead.

upvoted 0 times

...

Von

6 months ago

I remember we discussed the importance of having a checklist for code reviews. It helps maintain consistency, right? So, I think option A could be one of the answers.

upvoted 0 times

...

Vernell

6 months ago

Saving time by focusing on aggregated reviews rather than individual changes doesn't seem like the best approach for security. I'll steer clear of that one and go with the checklist and combined human-tool review.

upvoted 0 times

...

Antonio

6 months ago

Generating a checklist is definitely a good idea to ensure consistency. And combining manual and automated reviews makes sense to get the most comprehensive coverage. I feel pretty confident about those two choices.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hubert

6 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about the best practices here. I'll need to think carefully about the options and make sure I understand the tradeoffs before selecting my answers.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sherita

7 months ago

This question seems straightforward. I'll focus on generating a consistent code review checklist and combining human and automated checks to catch all issues.

upvoted 0 times

...

Elmer

7 months ago

The key is to look for the "Number of Peers" field in the output. That will tell you how many other PEs are part of this VPRN.

upvoted 0 times

...

Genevive

7 months ago

I'm a bit confused about the definitions. I feel like option C sounds right, but I also see how A might fit too.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lenna

7 months ago

Okay, the key here is that only expense accounts require dimensions. So configuring default dimensions on expense accounts only should meet the goal. I'm feeling pretty confident about this one.

upvoted 0 times

...

Buck

7 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit confused. I'll need to review the definitions of these ratios and how they are calculated to determine which one won't change.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lacresha

11 months ago

A and C are the way to go, no doubt. Can't have those developers slacking off, am I right? Although, I do hope the code review software has a 'shame the developer' feature. That would be hilarious!

upvoted 0 times

...

Oren

11 months ago

Combining human effort and automatic checks is the way to go. Gotta catch those sneaky bugs! Although, I do have to wonder if the code review software will give me a gold star for every flaw I find. *wink wink*

upvoted 0 times

...

Crista

11 months ago

Focusing on aggregated reviews? I don't think that's a good idea. You need to review each meaningful change to ensure quality. And using the tool to call out individual developers? That's just asking for trouble!

upvoted 0 times

Adelina

10 months ago

Using the tool to call out individual developers? That's just asking for trouble!

upvoted 0 times

...

Reed

10 months ago

Focusing on aggregated reviews? I don't think that's a good idea. You need to review each meaningful change to ensure quality.

upvoted 0 times

...

Belen

10 months ago

C) Conduct a review that combines human efforts and automatic checks by the tool to detect all flaws.

upvoted 0 times

...

Pauline

11 months ago

A) Generate a code review checklist to ensure consistency between reviews and different reviewers.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nickie

12 months ago

Generating a code review checklist is definitely a must to ensure consistency. Automatic checks are also key to catch any potential flaws that human eyes might miss.

upvoted 0 times