Platform-App-Builder Exam Dumps - Salesforce Certified Platform App Builder (Plat-Admn-202)

When configuring an approval process, the available initial submission actions (triggered when a record is first submitted for approval) include sending notifications, creating tasks, and sending outbound messages.

Why A (Outbound Message) is correct:Exact Extract:“Outbound messages can be configured as approval actions to send information to external systems when a record is submitted or approved.” — Salesforce Help | Approval Processes Overview

Why C (Task) is correct:Exact Extract:“Approval processes can create tasks for users as part of approval actions to ensure follow-up on record changes.” — Salesforce Help | Approval Actions

Why D (Email Alert) is correct:Exact Extract:“Email alerts can be sent automatically when a record is submitted, approved, rejected, or recalled.” — Salesforce Help | Approval Processes Overview

Why not B (Invocable Flow):Invocable Flows are not selectable as approval actions — they are used in Process Builder or Flow itself, not Approval Process configuration.

Why not E (Decision Element):Decision elements are Flow components, not part of the Approval Process action set.

The feature that the app builder should use to allow users to create the opportunity is a quick action. A quick action is a type of custom button or link that can create or update records, log calls, send emails, or launch flows from a record page or a global menu. The app builder can create a quick action on the account object that creates an opportunity record with pre-populated fields. Option B is incorrect because a default action is not a valid term, but rather a standard action that appears on every record page by default, such as Edit or Delete. Option C is incorrect because a custom button is not suitable for this requirement, as custom buttons can only display a URL or execute JavaScript when clicked. Option D is incorrect because a custom link is not suitable for this requirement, as custom links can only display a URL or execute JavaScript when clicked.

 Create a page layout with the field and use field-level security to hide the field from all other users is how the app builder should meet the requirement of making the comment field on Review private to anyone outside of HR department. Field-level security can control which profiles can view or edit a field on a record. Create an Apex sharing rule, create a sharing rule to share the field with VP of HR with Role and Subordinates, and create a page layout with the field for HR users and another page layout without the field for all other users are not valid or feasible solutions for this requirement.

The Account record includes Invoice roll-up summary fields. This is correct because roll-up summary fields are only available on the master object in a master-detail relationship, and changing the field type to lookup would delete the roll-up summary fields

To configure a custom Lightning component for use in a record page, the app builder needs to edit a record page using the Lightning App Builder and drag the component onto the page. The Page Layout editor and the App Manager are not used for this purpose

 Groups is available in the Chatter section of the navigation menu, not in the selected list for the navigation menu. According to the Salesforce documentation, “Groups appear in Chatter, not in Navigation Menu.” Groups is not available in the recent section of the navigation menu, nor is it included in the Smart Search items but unavailable on the navigation menu. Groups is unavailable in the selected list for the navigation menu.

 The recommended solution to grant the customer service agent access to the field is creating a permission set that allows read-only access to the field via Field Level Security and assigning it to the agent. A permission set is a collection of settings and permissions that give users access to various tools and functions. Field Level Security (FLS) is a setting that controls the access level of fields for different profiles or permission sets. The app builder can create a permission set that grants read-only access to the custom field on the account object via FLS and assign it to the agent. Option B is incorrect because creating a new profile to allow for read-only access to the field via FLS and assigning it to the agent is not recommended, as profiles are used to define the baseline permissions and settings for a group of users, and creating multiple profiles for individual users can be hard to maintain. Option C is incorrect because updating the Customer Service Profile already assigned to the agent to allow for read-only access to the field via FLS is not recommended, as this will affect all users who have the same profile, which may violate the security policy. Option D is incorrect because updating the custom field’s FLS in setup to allow the agent read-only access to the field is not possible, as FLS can only be set at the profile or permission set level, not at the user level.

The solution that should meet this requirement is updating the support team profile to remove the Bronze record type. This way, the support team users will not be able to create new cases with the Bronze record type, as it will not appear in their record type selection list. Option A is incorrect because updating the organization-wide defaults to private for Case does not affect the record type availability, but rather the record access level. Option C is incorrect because creating permission set group for Case that includes Platinum and Diamond record types does not prevent the support team users from creating new cases with the Bronze record type, as they may still have access to it through their profile. Option D is incorrect because making the record type hidden to support users and updating sharing roles to private does not prevent the support team users from creating new cases with the Bronze record type, as they may still have access to it through their profile.