Refer to the following XML to answer the question below. You are an integration developer and need to write XSLT to transform the output of an EIB which is using a web service enabled report to output worker data along with their dependents. You currently have a template which matches on wd:Report_Data/wd:Report_Entry for creating a record from each report entry. Within the template which matches on wd:Report_Entry you would like to conditionally process the wd: Dependents_Group elements by using an <xsl:apply-templates> element. What XPath syntax would be used as the select for the apply templates so as to iterate over only the wd: Dependents_Group elements where the dependent relationship is Child?
Correct Answer: B
In Workday integrations, XSLT (Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformations) is commonly used to transform XML data, such as the output from an Enterprise Interface Builder (EIB) or a web service-enabled report, into a format suitable for third-party systems. In this scenario, you are tasked with writing XSLT to process the wd:Dependents_Group elements within a report output to iterate only over those where the dependent relationship is "Child." The correct XPath syntax for the select attribute of an <xsl:apply- templates> element is critical to ensure accurate data transformation. Here's why option B is correct: * XPath Syntax Explanation: In XPath, square brackets [ ] are used to specify predicates or conditions to filter elements. The condition wd:Relationship='Child' checks if the wd:Relationship element (or attribute, depending on the XML structure) has the value "Child." When applied to wd: Dependents_Group, the expression wd:Dependents_Group[wd:Relationship='Child'] selects only those wd:Dependents_Group elements that contain a wd:Relationship child element with the value "Child." * Context in XSLT: Within an <xsl:apply-templates> element, the select attribute uses XPath to specify which nodes to process. This syntax ensures that the template only applies to wd:Dependents_Group elements where the dependent is a child, aligning with the requirement to conditionally process only those specific dependents. * XML Structure Alignment: Based on the provided XML snippet, wd:Dependents_Group likely contains child elements or attributes, including wd:Relationship. The correct XPath assumes wd: Relationship is an element (not an attribute), as is common in Workday XML structures. Therefore, wd: Dependents_Group[wd:Relationship='Child'] is the appropriate syntax to filter and iterate over the desired elements. Why not the other options? * A. wd:Dependents_Group[@wd:Relationship='Child']: This syntax uses @ to indicate that wd: Relationship is an attribute of wd:Dependents_Group, not an element. If wd:Relationship is not defined as an attribute in the XML (as is typical in Workday's XML structure, where it's often an element), this would result in no matches, making it incorrect. * C. wd:Dependents_Group/wd:Relationship='Child': This is not a valid XPath expression for a predicate. It attempts to navigate to wd:Relationship as a child but does not use square brackets [ ] to create a filtering condition. This would be interpreted as selecting wd:Relationship elements under wd: Dependents_Group, but it wouldn't filter based on the value "Child" correctly within an <xsl:apply- templates> context. * D. wd:Dependents_Group/@wd:Relationship='Child': Similar to option A, this assumes wd: Relationship is an attribute, which may not match the XML structure. Additionally, it lacks the predicate structure [ ], making it invalid for filtering in this context. To implement this in XSLT: * You would write an <xsl:apply-templates> element within your template matching wd:Report_Entry, with the select attribute set to wd:Dependents_Group[wd:Relationship='Child']. This ensures that only wd:Dependents_Group elements with a wd:Relationship value of "Child" are processed by the corresponding templates, effectively filtering out other dependent relationships (e.g., Spouse, Parent) in the transformation. This approach ensures the XSLT transformation aligns with Workday's XML structure and integration requirements for processing worker data and dependents in an EIB or web service-enabled report. References: * Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: Section on "XSLT Transformations for Workday Integrations" - Details the use of XPath in XSLT for filtering XML elements, including predicates for conditional processing. * 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 XPath to navigate and filter data. * Workday Reporting and Analytics Guide: Section on "Web Service-Enabled Reports" - Covers integrating report outputs with XSLT for transformations, including examples of filtering elements based on values.
Question 2
When creating an ISU, what should you do to ensure the user only authenticates via web services?
Correct Answer: B
When creating an Integration System User (ISU) in Workday, the goal is often to ensure that the user is restricted to performing tasks via web services (e.g., API calls or integrations) and cannot log into the Workday user interface (UI). This is a critical security measure to limit the ISU's access to only what is necessary for integration purposes, adhering to the principle of least privilege. Let's evaluate each option provided in the question to determine the correct approach based on Workday's functionality and best practices as outlined in official documentation and the Workday Pro Integrations program. * Option A: Choose a constrained security group.In Workday, security groups define the permissions and access levels for users, including ISUs. There are two types of Integration System Security Groups (ISSGs): constrained and unconstrained. A constrained ISSG limits access to specific organizations or data scopes, while an unconstrained ISSG provides broader access across the tenant. While choosing a constrained security group can enhance security by limiting the scope of data the ISU can access, it does not directly control whether the ISU authenticates via web services or the UI. The type of security group affects data access permissions, not the authentication method or UI access. Therefore, this option does not address the requirement of ensuring authentication only via web services. * Option B: Select the Do Not Allow UI Sessions checkbox.When creating an ISU in Workday, the "Create Integration System User" task presents an option labeled "Do Not Allow UI Sessions." Selecting this checkbox explicitly prevents the ISU from logging into the Workday UI using its credentials. This setting ensures that the ISU can only authenticate and operate through programmatic means, such as web service calls (e.g., SOAP or REST APIs), which is precisely the intent of the question. This is a standard security practice recommended by Workday to isolate integration activities from interactive user sessions, reducing the risk of misuse or unauthorized access through the UI. This option directly aligns with the requirement and is the correct answer. * Option C: Update the session timeout minutes.The "Session Timeout Minutes" field in the ISU creation task determines how long an ISU's session remains active before it expires. By default, this is set to 0, meaning the session does not expire, which is suitable for integrations that require continuous operation without interruption. Updating this value (e.g., setting it to a specific number of minutes) would cause the session to time out after that period, potentially disrupting long-running integrations. However, this setting pertains to session duration, not the method of authentication or whether UI access is allowed. It does not prevent the ISU from logging into the UI or ensure that authentication occurs only via web services, making this option irrelevant to the question. * Option D: Generate a random password.Generating a random password for the ISU is a good security practice to ensure the credentials are strong and not easily guessable. However, the password itself does not dictate how the ISU authenticates or whether it can access the UI. A random password enhances security but does not inherently restrict the ISU to web service authentication. Without selecting "Do Not Allow UI Sessions," the ISU could still log into the UI with that password, assuming no other restrictions are applied. Thus, this option does not fulfill the requirement of ensuring authentication only via web services. Why Option B is Correct The "Do Not Allow UI Sessions" checkbox is a specific configuration in the ISU setup process that directly enforces the restriction of authentication to web services. This setting is part of Workday's security framework for integrations, ensuring that ISUs-designed as non-human accounts for programmatic access- cannot be used interactively. This aligns with Workday's best practices for securing integrations, as outlined in the Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide and related documentation. For example, when an ISU is created with this checkbox selected, any attempt to log into the Workday UI with its credentials will fail, while web service requests (e.g., via SOAP or REST APIs) will succeed, assuming proper permissions are granted via an ISSG. Practical Application To implement this in Workday: * Log into your Workday tenant with administrative privileges. * Search for and select the "Create Integration System User" task. * Enter a username and password for the ISU. * Check the "Do Not Allow UI Sessions" checkbox. * Leave "Session Timeout Minutes" at 0 (default) to avoid session expiration during integrations. * Save the ISU and assign it to an appropriate ISSG (constrained or unconstrained, depending on the integration's needs). This configuration ensures the ISU is locked to web service authentication, meeting the question's objective. Verification with Workday Documentation The Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide emphasizes securing ISUs by restricting them to integration- specific tasks. The "Do Not Allow UI Sessions" option is highlighted as a key control for preventing UI access, ensuring that ISUs operate solely through web services. This is also consistent with broader Workday security training materials, such as those available on Workday Community, which stress isolating integration accounts from human user activities. Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References * Section: Integration Security Fundamentals- Discusses the role of ISUs and the importance of restricting their access to programmatic interactions. * Section: Configuring Integration System Users- Details the "Create Integration System User" task, including the "Do Not Allow UI Sessions" checkbox as a security control. * Section: Best Practices for Integration Security- Recommends using this setting to enforce least privilege and protect the tenant from unauthorized UI access by integration accounts.
Question 3
Refer to the following XML and example transformed output to answer the question below. Example transformed wd:Report_Entry output; What is the XSLT syntax tor a template that matches onwd: Educationj3roup to produce the degree data in the above Transformed_Record example?
Correct Answer: A
In Workday integrations, XSLT is used to transform XML data, such as the output from a web service- enabled report or EIB, into a desired format for third-party systems. In this scenario, you need to create an XSLT template that matches the wd:Education_Group element in the provided XML and transforms it to produce the degree data in the format shown in the Transformed_Record example. The goal is to output each degree (e.g., "California University MBA" and "Georgetown University B.S.") as a <Degree> element within a <Degrees> parent element. Here's why option A is correct: * Template Matching: The <xsl:template match="wd:Education_Group"> correctly targets the wd: Education_Group element in the XML, which contains multiple wd:Education elements, each with a wd:Degree child, as shown in the XML snippet (e.g., <wd:Education>California University</wd: Education><wd:Degree>MBA</wd:Degree>). * Transformation Logic: * <Degree> creates the outer <Degree> element for each education group, matching the structure in the Transformed_Record example (e.g., <Degree>California University MBA</Degree>). * <xsl:copy><xsl:value-of select="*"/></xsl:copy> copies the content of the child elements (wd: Education and wd:Degree) and concatenates their values into a single string. The select="*" targets all child elements of wd:Education_Group, and xsl:value-of outputs their text content (e. g., "California University" and "MBA" become "California University MBA"). * This approach ensures that each wd:Education_Group is transformed into a single <Degree> element with the combined text of the wd:Education and wd:Degree values, matching the example output. * Context and Output: The template operates on each wd:Education_Group, producing the nested structure shown in the Transformed_Record (e.g., <Degrees><Degree>CaliforniaUniversity MBA< /Degree><Degree>Georgetown University B.S.</Degree></Degrees>), assuming a parent template or additional logic wraps the <Degree> elements in <Degrees>. Why not the other options? * B. xml WrapCopy <xsl:template match="wd:Education_Group"> <Degree> <xsl:value-of select="*"/> </Degree> </xsl:template> This uses <xsl:value-of select="*"/> without <xsl:copy>, which outputs the concatenated text of all child elements but does not preserve any XML structure or formatting. It would produce plain text (e.g., "California UniversityMBACalifornia UniversityB.S.") without the proper <Degree> tags, failing to match the structured output in the example. * C. xml WrapCopy <xsl:template match="wd:Education_Group"> <Degree> <xsl:copy select="*"/> </Degree> </xsl:template> This uses <xsl:copy select="*"/>, but <xsl:copy> does not take a select attribute-it simply copies the current node. This would result in an invalid XSLT syntax and fail to produce the desired output, making it incorrect. * D. xml WrapCopy <xsl:template match="wd:Education_Group"> <Degree> <xsl:copy-of select="*"/> </Degree> </xsl:template> This uses <xsl:copy-of select="*"/>, which copies all child nodes (e.g., wd:Education and wd:Degree) as-is, including their element structure, resulting in output like <Degree><wd:Education>California University</wd: Education><wd:Degree>MBA</wd:Degree></Degree>. This does not match the flattened, concatenated text format in the Transformed_Record example (e.g., <Degree>California University MBA</Degree>), making it incorrect. To implement this in XSLT for a Workday integration: * Use the template from option A to match wd:Education_Group, apply <xsl:copy><xsl:value-of select=" *"/></xsl:copy> to concatenate and output the wd:Education and wd:Degree values as a single <Degree> element. This ensures the transformation aligns with the Transformed_Record example, producing the required format for the integration output. References: * Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: Section on "XSLT Transformations for Workday Integrations" - Details the use of <xsl:template>, <xsl:copy>, and <xsl:value-of> for transforming XML data, including handling grouped elements like wd:Education_Group. * Workday EIB and Web Services Guide: Chapter on "XML and XSLT for Report Data" - Explains the structure of Workday XML (e.g., wd:Education_Group, wd:Education, wd:Degree) and how to use XSLT to transform education data into a flattened format. * Workday Reporting and Analytics Guide: Section on "Web Service-Enabled Reports" - Covers integrating report outputs with XSLT for transformations, including examples of concatenating and restructuring data for third-party systems.
Question 4
What is the task used to upload a new XSLT file for a pre-existing document transformation integration system?
Correct Answer: A
Question 5
Refer to the following scenario to answer the question below. You have been asked to build an integration using the Core Connector: Worker template and should leverage the Data Initialization Service (DIS). The integration will be used to export a full file (no change detection) for employees only and will include personal data. The vendor receiving the file requires marital status values to be sent using a list of codes that they have provided instead of the text values that Workday uses internally and if a text value in Workday does not align with the vendors list of codes the integration should report "OTHER". What configuration is required to output the list of codes required from by the vendor instead of Workday's values in this integration?
Correct Answer: C
The scenario involves a Core Connector: Worker integration using the Data Initialization Service (DIS) to export a full file of employee personal data. The vendor requires marital status values to be transformed from Workday's internal text values (e.g., "Married," "Single") to a specific list of codes (e.g., "M," "S"), and any Workday value not matching the vendor's list should output "OTHER." Let's analyze the configuration: * Requirement:Transform the "Marital Status" field values into vendor-specific codes, with a fallback to "OTHER" for unmapped values. This is a field-level transformation, common in Core Connectors when aligning Workday data with external system requirements. * Integration Maps:In Core Connectors,Integration Mapsare the primary tool for transforming field values. You create a map that defines source values (Workday's marital status text) and target values (vendor's codes). The "Default" setting in an integration map specifies what value to output if a Workday value isn't explicitly mapped. Here, setting the default to "OTHER" ensures that any marital status not in the vendor's list (e.g., a new Workday value like "Civil Union" not recognized by the vendor) is output as "OTHER." * Option Analysis: * A. Configure Integration Maps with a blank Default: Incorrect. A blank default would leave the field empty or pass the original Workday value for unmapped cases, not "OTHER," failing the requirement. * B. Configure Integration Attributes with a blank Default: Incorrect. Integration Attributes define integration-level settings (e.g., file name, delivery method), not field value transformations. They don't support mapping or defaults for specific fields like marital status. * C. Configure Integration Maps with "OTHER" as a Default: Correct. This uses Integration Maps to map Workday values to vendor codes and sets "OTHER" as the default for unmapped values, meeting the requirement fully. * D. Configure Integration Attributes with "OTHER" as a Default: Incorrect. Integration Attributes don't handle field-level transformations or defaults for data values, making this option inapplicable. * Implementation: * Edit the Core Connector: Worker integration. * Use the related actionConfigure Integration Maps. * Create a map for the "Marital Status" field (e.g., "Married" # "M," "Single" # "S"). * Set theDefault Valueto "OTHER" in the map configuration. * Test the output to ensure mapped values use vendor codes and unmapped values return "OTHER." References from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: * Core Connectors & Document Transformation: Section on "Configuring Integration Maps" explains mapping field values and using defaults for unmapped cases. * Integration System Fundamentals: Highlights how Core Connectors transform data to meet vendor specifications.
