MuleSoft-Platform-Architect-I Exam Dumps - Salesforce Certified MuleSoft Platform Architect (Mule-Arch-201)

Center for Enablement (C4E) KPIs:

A Center for Enablement (C4E) in MuleSoft focuses on enabling self-service and reuse by providing APIs that can be consumed across the organization. A key metric of success is how many consumers are utilizing the published APIs.

The number of consumers who have requested and received access to an API indicates the level of adoption and reuse, which aligns with the goals of a C4E.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A: This metric could indicate deployment automation, but it is not a direct measure of C4E’s success in enabling API reuse and consumption.

Option B: Bandwidth usage per API implementation provides insight into API traffic but does not measure C4E enablement or consumer engagement.

Option C: The number of developers downloading an API specification can be an indicator of interest but does not confirm actual usage or enablement.

Option D (Correct Answer): The number of consumers who have requested and received access to an API in production is a key metric indicating API adoption and reuse, which aligns with C4E’s goals.

Conclusion:

Option D is the correct answer as it provides a direct measure of consumer engagement and adoption, indicating the success of the C4E in promoting API usage across the organization.

Refer to MuleSoft’s documentation on C4E KPIs and API usage metrics for additional insights.

In MuleSoft’s ecosystem, when a Process API needs to consume a System API (published to Exchange and protected by OAuth 2.0), the recommended approach is to utilize the REST Connect Connector. Here’s how it aligns with best practices:

Automated Connector Generation:

When a RAML or OAS specification is published in Exchange, MuleSoft automatically generates a REST Connect Connector for that API. This connector simplifies integration as it abstracts the complexity of making HTTP requests and handling OAuth authentication.

Streamlined Integration:

The Process API can import this generated connector from Exchange and configure OAuth credentials, streamlining secure access to the System API without manual HTTP setup.

Why Option C is Correct:

Using the REST Connect Connector directly leverages MuleSoft’s automated tooling, minimizing manual configurations and ensuring a more maintainable integration.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

Option A (importing an OAuth module) is unnecessary; OAuth is handled within the connector’s configuration.

Option B (property YAML files with HTTP requests) involves manual setup, which is more error-prone and not recommended.

Option D (manually updating POM file) does not directly aid in invoking an API through Exchange.

ReferencesFor more information on using REST Connect Connectors and OAuth integration in MuleSoft, refer to the MuleSoft documentation on API Management and Connectors​​.

To accommodate the new requirement of allowing updates to existing quotes, the following actions should be taken:

Update the RAML Definition (Option C):

The RAML specification defines the structure and behavior of the API. Adding a new method (such as PUT or PATCH) for updating quotes requires modifying the RAML to include this new endpoint. This ensures the API specification is up-to-date and accurately reflects the new functionality.

Update the API Implementation (Option A):

Once the RAML is updated, the backend API implementation must also be modified to handle the new update requests. This could involve adding logic to process and validate update requests, connect to necessary backend resources, and apply the changes to existing quotes.

Explanation of Incorrect Options:

Option B (removing and creating new clients) is unnecessary; client applications can remain as they are, with no need for complete replacement.

Option D (deprecating existing versions) may not be required if backward compatibility is maintained.

Option E (adding a new policy) does not facilitate functional changes and is unrelated to implementing the update feature.

ReferencesFor more details on updating RAML definitions and API implementations, refer to MuleSoft’s API Design documentation on RAML and RESTful API practices​.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment; add timeout and retry logic to the process API to avoid intermittent failures; if it still fails, invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment

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

There is one important consideration to be noted in the question which is - System API in DR environment provides only 20% of the rate limiting offered by the primary environment. So, comparitively, very less calls will be allowed into the DR environment API opposed to its primary environment. With this in mind, lets analyse what is the right and best fault-tolerant invocation strategy.

1. Invoking both the system APIs in parallel is definitely NOT a feasible approach because of the 20% limitation we have on DR environment. Calling in parallel every time would easily and quickly exhaust the rate limits on DR environment and may not give chance to genuine intermittent error scenarios to let in during the time of need.

2. Another option given is suggesting to add timeout and retry logic to process API while invoking primary environment's system API. This is good so far. However, when all retries failed, the option is suggesting to invoke the copy of process API on DR environment which is not right or recommended. Only system API is the one to be considered for fallback and not the whole process API. Process APIs usually have lot of heavy orchestration calling many other APIs which we do not want to repeat again by calling DR's process API. So this option is NOT right.

3. One more option given is suggesting to add the retry (no timeout) logic to process API to directly retry on DR environment's system API instead of retrying the primary environment system API first. This is not at all a proper fallback. A proper fallback should occur only after all retries are performed and exhausted on Primary environment first. But here, the option is suggesting to directly retry fallback API on first failure itself without trying main API. So, this option is NOT right too.

This leaves us one option which is right and best fit.

- Invoke the system API deployed to the primary environment

- Add Timeout and Retry logic on it in process API

- If it fails even after all retries, then invoke the system API deployed to the DR environment.

Understanding Spike Control and Rate Limiting Policies:

Spike Control Policy: Limits the number of requests processed by the API in a short time to handle sudden bursts of traffic. It does not queue requests but rejects any request that exceeds the allowed burst rate.

Rate Limiting Policy: Sets a limit on the number of requests that an API can handle within a given timeframe. Once the limit is reached, additional requests are rejected.

Evaluating the Options:

Option A: Incorrect. In both Spike Control and Rate Limiting policies, requests are rejected once the limit is reached. Spike Control does not queue requests; it only controls the burst rate by rejecting excessive requests.

Option B (Correct Answer): In a clustered environment, each node independently enforces the Rate Limiting and Spike Control policies, meaning that the limits apply to each node separately. This ensures that each node can control its own resource usage independently within the cluster.

Option C: This is partially correct, as Rate Limiting is often used to protect Experience APIs, but Spike Control could also be useful in limiting resource consumption under high burst conditions.

Option D: Incorrect. Although a contract is required to enforce client-specific policies, Rate Limiting and Spike Control do not require a contract to function for general traffic control.

Conclusion:

Option B is the correct answer because, in a clustered environment, Rate Limiting and Spike Control policies apply separately to each node, helping each instance to manage its own load.

For more information, refer to MuleSoft’s documentation on applying Rate Limiting and Spike Control policies in a clustered environment.

Explanation

Correct Answer: GET, OPTIONS, HEAD

http://restcookbook.com/HTTP%20Methods/idempotency/

Explanation

Correct Answer: Set a timeout of 100ms; that leaves 400ms for other two downstream APIs to complete

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

Key details to take from the given scenario:

>> Upstream API's designed SLA is 500ms (median). Lets ignore maximum SLA response times.

>> This API calls 3 downstream APIs sequentially and all these are of similar complexity.

>> The first downstream API is offering median SLA of 100ms, 80th percentile: 500ms; 95th percentile: 1000ms.

Based on the above details:

>> We can rule out the option which is suggesting to set 50ms timeout. Because, if the median SLA itself being offered is 100ms then most of the calls are going to timeout and time gets wasted in retried them and eventually gets exhausted with all retries. Even if some retries gets successful, the remaining time wont leave enough room for 2nd and 3rd downstream APIs to respond within time.

>> The option suggesting to NOT set a timeout as the invocation of this API is mandatory and so we must wait until it responds is silly. As not setting time out would go against the good implementation pattern and moreover if the first API is not responding within its offered median SLA 100ms then most probably it would either respond in 500ms (80th percentile) or 1000ms (95th percentile). In BOTH cases, getting a successful response from 1st downstream API does NO GOOD because already by this time the Upstream API SLA of 500 ms is breached. There is no time left to call 2nd and 3rd downstream APIs.

>> It is NOT true that no timeout is possible to meet the upstream APIs desired SLA.

As 1st downstream API is offering its median SLA of 100ms, it means MOST of the time we would get the responses within that time. So, setting a timeout of 100ms would be ideal for MOST calls as it leaves enough room of 400ms for remaining 2 downstream API calls.

https://www.folkstalk.com/2019/11/mulesoft-integration-and-platform.html

Explanation

Correct Answer: To invoke OAuth 2.0-protected APIs managed by Anypoint Platform, API clients must submit access tokens issued by that same Identity Provider

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

>> It is NOT necessary that single sign-on is required to sign in to Anypoint Platform because we are using an external Identity Provider for Client Management

>> It is NOT necessary that all APIs managed by Anypoint Platform must be protected by SAML 2.0 policies because we are using an external Identity Provider for Client Management

>> Not TRUE that the application network must include System APIs that interact with the Identity Provider because we are using an external Identity Provider for Client Management

Only TRUE statement in the given options is - "To invoke OAuth 2.0-protected APIs managed by Anypoint Platform, API clients must submit access tokens issued by that same Identity Provider"