Workday-Pro-Integrations Exam - Topic 5 Question 4 Discussion

Actual exam question for Workday's Workday-Pro-Integrations exam

Question #: 4
Topic #: 5

[All Workday-Pro-Integrations Questions]

You have been asked to create an integration using the Core Connector: Worker with DIS template. The vendor has requested that you only include employees who are based in the San Francisco area that are on leave.

How do you configure your integration so that only workers who meet the requirements are included in the output file?

AConfigure a Boolean field for San Francisco workers on leave in the field overrides.

BConfigure a Boolean field for Population Eligibility for San Francisco workers on leave.

CConfigure the integration attributes to include workers in San Francisco on leave.

DConfigure a Boolean field for San Francisco workers on leave under the field attributes.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

When using Core Connector: Worker with DIS, to restrict the population to employees who:

Are on leave, and

Are located in San Francisco

You must configure Population Eligibility, which is the only place to filter the worker population included in the connector output.

From Workday Pro documentation:

''The Population Eligibility section defines which workers are eligible for extraction in the integration based on location, status, organization, and other conditions. Boolean calculated fields can be used here to define complex eligibility criteria.''

In this case:

Create a Boolean calculated field that returns true for ''On Leave AND Location = San Francisco''

Use that field in Population Eligibility

Why the others are incorrect:

A, D. Field Overrides and Field Attributes only modify what data is extracted---not who is included.

C . Integration Attributes don't control population filtering.

by Jaleesa at Nov 25, 2025, 11:18 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Workday-Pro-Integrations Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Emiko

1 month ago

C is definitely the way to go. It’s precise for our needs.

upvoted 0 times

...

Paulene

1 month ago

D seems too limiting. We need a broader approach.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sarah

1 month ago

I like B. Population eligibility sounds comprehensive.

upvoted 0 times

...

Cyril

2 months ago

Option A could work too, but it feels a bit indirect.

upvoted 0 times

...

Nadine

2 months ago

I agree, C makes sense. Clear and straightforward.

upvoted 0 times

...

Julieta

2 months ago

Not sure if any of these will work as expected.

upvoted 0 times

...

Linwood

2 months ago

I’m surprised they didn’t mention anything about filtering criteria!

upvoted 0 times

...

Luann

2 months ago

Wait, why not just use A? Seems simpler.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lou

2 months ago

Definitely agree with C! Makes the most sense.

upvoted 0 times

...

Regenia

3 months ago

This question is making my brain hurt. I'm just going to go with Option B and call it a day.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lorrie

3 months ago

Option D is the way to go. Boolean fields are the secret sauce of integration success!

upvoted 0 times

...

Wilburn

3 months ago

This question is a real head-scratcher. I'm going to go with Option C and hope for the best!

upvoted 0 times

...

Lenna

4 months ago

Option B is the way to go. Gotta love that Population Eligibility field!

upvoted 0 times

...

Catherin

4 months ago

I'm leaning towards Option D. Seems more straightforward to me.

upvoted 0 times

...

Susy

4 months ago

Option C seems like the way to go. Straight to the point!

upvoted 0 times

...

Benedict

4 months ago

I definitely remember that we need to filter for location and leave status, but I’m torn between options A and D for how to set that up correctly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Darrin

4 months ago

I feel like option B sounds right because it mentions Population Eligibility, but I'm not entirely confident about how that ties into the integration setup.

upvoted 0 times

...

Wilda

4 months ago

I think we need to focus on the attributes for the workers, but I'm not sure if it's option C or D that specifically mentions the integration attributes.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kattie

5 months ago

I've got a good strategy for this. I'll go with option C and configure the integration attributes to pull in only the San Francisco-based workers who are on leave. That way, I can easily filter the data to meet the vendor's requirements.

upvoted 0 times

...

Irma

5 months ago

This is a tricky one. I'm not sure if I should be creating a new Boolean field or using the existing fields in the integration. I'll need to double-check the documentation to make sure I'm approaching this correctly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ilona

5 months ago

Okay, I think I've got this. The key is to filter the workers based on their location and leave status. Option C looks like the best approach - I'll configure the integration attributes to only include the San Francisco-based employees who are currently on leave.

upvoted 0 times

...

Peggie

5 months ago

I think option C is the way to go.

upvoted 0 times

...

Marya

5 months ago

I think option C is the best. It directly targets the workers we need.

upvoted 0 times

...

Vallie

6 months ago

Option A is the clear winner here. Boolean fields are the way of the future!

upvoted 0 times

...

Nohemi

6 months ago

I remember practicing a similar question, and I think configuring a Boolean field is important, but I can't recall if it should be for field overrides or field attributes.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kristin

6 months ago

I'm a bit confused here. Do I need to create a custom Boolean field for this, or can I just use the existing fields in the integration? I'm not sure if option A, B, or D is the right approach.

upvoted 0 times

...

Edwin

6 months ago

Hmm, this seems straightforward. I think I'll go with option C and configure the integration attributes to include only the workers in San Francisco who are on leave.

upvoted 0 times