MuleSoft-Platform-Architect-I Exam Dumps - Salesforce MuleSoft Questions and Answers

Understanding JSON Threat Protection Policies:

JSON Threat Protection policies are used to protect APIs from attacks that exploit JSON payloads, such as oversized payloads, deeply nested objects, and excessive array elements. This helps prevent Denial of Service (DoS) attacks and other malicious payload-related threats.

These policies are typically applied to safeguard APIs that are directly exposed to external clients, where the risk of receiving malicious payloads is highest.

API-led Connectivity Layers:

Experience Layer: This layer is designed to expose APIs to end-users or external API clients, often acting as the interface that interacts with users or applications.

Process Layer: This layer is used for orchestration and aggregation of data from various System APIs, typically operating within a trusted environment and not directly exposed to external clients.

System Layer: This layer provides access to backend systems and databases, often within the organization’s secure environment and not directly accessible to external clients.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A (All layers): While JSON Threat Protection can technically be applied to all layers, it is most commonly applied at the Experience layer, where APIs are exposed to external traffic and are more vulnerable to attacks.

Option B (System layer): The System layer is generally not exposed to external clients directly, so JSON Threat Protection is less critical here.

Option C (Process layer): Similar to the System layer, the Process layer is typically internal and not exposed directly to external clients, so JSON Threat Protection is less commonly applied.

Option D (Correct Answer): The Experience layer is the correct answer because it is the layer that directly interacts with external clients, making it the primary target for malicious payloads. Applying JSON Threat Protection here effectively protects the application network from external threats.

Conclusion:

Option D is the correct answer, as the Experience layer is the most common layer for applying JSON Threat Protection policies to protect against external attacks.

For further reference, consult MuleSoft's documentation on API security policies and best practices for securing APIs at the Experience layer.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Ask the Marketing Department to interact with a mocking implementation of the API using the automatically generated API Console.

*****************************************

As per MuleSoft's IT Operating Model:

>> API consumers need NOT wait until the full API implementation is ready.

>> NO technical test-suites needs to be shared with end users to interact with APIs.

>> Anypoint Platform offers a mocking capability on all the published API specifications to Anypoint Exchange which also will be rich in documentation covering all details of API functionalities and working nature.

>> No needs of arranging days of workshops with end users for feedback.

API consumers can use Anypoint Exchange features on the platform and interact with the API using its mocking feature. The feedback can be shared quickly on the same to incorporate any changes.

Given that the application is designed to handle only one process at a time to maintain data consistency, here’s why horizontal scaling won’t increase the processing limit:

Single-Process Constraint:

The application limits to processing one transaction at a time due to its design for consistency, meaning horizontal scaling (adding more workers) does not increase processing speed beyond this limit.

Execution Time:

Since each request takes 200 ms, five requests per second is the maximum processing threshold. Increasing the number of workers does not bypass this single-process limitation.

Explanation of Correct Answer (A):

The scalability remains at five requests per second, as this constraint is intrinsic to the application’s design.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

Option B suggests a change in execution time, which horizontal scaling does not affect.

Option C assumes doubling the throughput, which isn’t possible due to the single-threaded nature of the application.

Option D suggests horizontal scaling cannot apply, which is incorrect; however, scaling does not increase throughput in this context.

ReferencesFor more on understanding scaling and concurrency in Mule applications, see MuleSoft’s documentation on application performance and scaling limitations​.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Search Anypoint exchange for a suitable existing fallback API, and then implement invocations to this fallback API in addition to the order API

*****************************************

>> It is not ideal and good approach, until unless there is a pre-approved agreement with the API clients that they will receive a HTTP 3xx temporary redirect status code and they have to implement fallback logic their side to call another API.

>> Creating separate entry of same Order API in API manager would just create an another instance of it on top of same API implementation. So, it does NO GOOD by using clone od same API as a fallback API. Fallback API should be ideally a different API implementation that is not same as primary one.

>> There is NO option currently provided by Anypoint HTTP Connector that allows us to invoke a fallback API when we receive certain HTTP status codes in response.

The only statement TRUE in the given options is to Search Anypoint exchange for a suitable existing fallback API, and then implement invocations to this fallback API in addition to the order API.

Role of Process API in API-led Connectivity:

In MuleSoft’s API-led connectivity approach, a Process API is used to coordinate, aggregate, and orchestrate data from various System APIs. It is primarily responsible for implementing business logic that spans multiple backend systems or entities, transforming and combining data as needed to support business processes.

Process APIs are not directly exposed to end-user clients; rather, they work between System APIs and Experience APIs, providing business logic and orchestration capabilities.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A: Process APIs are not typically responsible for large data dumps or data synchronization. That function would be handled by a System API or a specialized batch process.

Option B: Managing direct, secure communication between back-end systems and end-user clients is typically the role of Experience APIs rather than Process APIs.

Option C (Correct Answer): Process APIs are designed to coordinate and orchestrate calls to multiple other APIs in the network, which supports the automation of business processes.

Option D: Securing and managing communication with end-user clients is typically the role of Experience APIs, not Process APIs.

Conclusion:

Option C is the correct answer, as the main role of a Process API is to coordinate and orchestrate interactions between other APIs, enabling business processes to function seamlessly across multiple systems.

Refer to MuleSoft's API-led connectivity documentation for further explanation of the roles and responsibilities of Process APIs in an application network.

In API-led design, an Experience API is enhanced to improve how data is delivered to end-user applications. One primary reason to enhance an Experience API is when new data standards, such as a Canonical Data Model, are adopted. Here’s why:

Canonical Data Model (CDM):

Adopting a CDM standardizes data representations across the organization, making APIs more consistent and easier to consume across various services and applications.

Updating the Experience API ensures that it delivers data in this standardized format, improving interoperability and reusability.

Explanation of Correct Answer (D):

A CDM impacts the structure and types of data the API provides, and this update would be directly relevant to an Experience API, as it is the primary point of interaction for applications.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

Option A involves adapting to consumer-specific standards, which is against API-led design principles.

Option B involves changes in System APIs, which don’t directly mandate changes to the Experience API unless data formatting adjustments are required.

Option C (IP Allowlist) relates to security rather than API design and would not motivate a functional enhancement of the API.

ReferencesFor more details on the use of Canonical Data Models in API-led architecture, refer to MuleSoft’s guidelines on data standardization and Experience API best practices​.

Explanation

Correct Answer: In parallel, invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment and the system API deployed to the DR environment, and ONLY use the first response.

*****************************************

>> The API requirement in the given scenario is to respond in least possible time.

>> The option that is suggesting to first try the API in primary environment and then fallback to API in DR environment would result in successful response but NOT in least possible time. So, this is NOT a right choice of implementation for given requirement.

>> Another option that is suggesting to ONLY invoke API in primary environment and to add timeout and retries may also result in successful response upon retries but NOT in least possible time. So, this is also NOT a right choice of implementation for given requirement.

>> One more option that is suggesting to invoke API in primary environment and API in DR environment in parallel using Scatter-Gather would result in wrong API response as it would return merged results and moreover, Scatter-Gather does things in parallel which is true but still completes its scope only on finishing all routes inside it. So again, NOT a right choice of implementation for given requirement

The Correct choice is to invoke the API in primary environment and the API in DR environment parallelly, and using ONLY the first response received from one of them.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Separate Experience APIs for the mobile and web app, but a common Process API that invokes separate System APIs created for the database and CRM system

*****************************************

As per MuleSoft's API-led connectivity:

>> Experience APIs should be built as per each consumer needs and their experience.

>> Process APIs should contain all the orchestration logic to achieve the business functionality.

>> System APIs should be built for each backend system to unlock their data.

Understanding Anypoint Monitoring and Its Capabilities:

Anypoint Monitoring provides comprehensive visibility into Mule applications, offering metrics and analytics such as request counts, response times, CPU utilization, memory usage, and other key performance indicators (KPIs). This tool is designed to help teams monitor API usage, troubleshoot issues, and optimize application performance.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A (Correct Answer): Anypoint Monitoring is the ideal tool for this requirement. It provides real-time insights into metrics such as the number of requests, response times, CPU utilization, and active API usage.

Option B (API Manager): API Manager focuses on API lifecycle management, including applying policies, managing contracts, and setting access controls. It does not provide performance monitoring or KPI tracking.

Option C (Runtime Alerts): Runtime Alerts can notify users of specific conditions, like high CPU usage, but they do not provide a full suite of metrics or insights over a given time period.

Option D (Functional Monitoring): Functional Monitoring focuses on functional testing of APIs rather than performance and usage metrics. It does not provide continuous KPI tracking.

Conclusion:

Option A is the correct answer. Anypoint Monitoring is the most suitable tool to track the specified metrics, providing detailed insights into API requests, response times, CPU usage, and active API counts.

For further details, refer to MuleSoft’s Anypoint Monitoring documentation on configuring dashboards and tracking performance metrics.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Use a horizontal CloudHub autoscaling policy that triggers on CPU utilization greater than 70%

*****************************************

The scenario in the question is very clearly stating that the usual traffic in the year is pretty well handled by the existing worker configuration with CPU running well below 70%. The problem occurs only "sometimes" occasionally when there is spike in the number of orders coming in.

So, based on above, We neither need to permanently increase the size of each worker nor need to permanently increase the number of workers. This is unnecessary as other than those "occasional" times the resources are idle and wasted.

We have two options left now. Either to use horizontal Cloudhub autoscaling policy to automatically increase the number of workers or to use vertical Cloudhub autoscaling policy to automatically increase the vCore size of each worker.

Here, we need to take two things into consideration:

1. CPU

2. Order Submission Rate to JMS Queue

>> From CPU perspective, both the options (horizontal and vertical scaling) solves the issue. Both helps to bring down the usage below 90%.

>> However, If we go with Vertical Scaling, then from Order Submission Rate perspective, as the application is still being load balanced with two workers only, there may not be much improvement in the incoming request processing rate and order submission rate to JMS queue. The throughput would be same as before. Only CPU utilization comes down.

>> But, if we go with Horizontal Scaling, it will spawn new workers and adds extra hand to increase the throughput as more workers are being load balanced now. This way we can address both CPU and Order Submission rate.

Hence, Horizontal CloudHub Autoscaling policy is the right and best answer.