Workday-Pro-Integrations Sample Exam | Reliable Workday-Pro-Integrations Test Question

Nowadays, flexible study methods become more and more popular with the development of the electronic products. The latest technologies have been applied to our Workday-Pro-Integrations actual exam as well since we are at the most leading position in this field. Besides, you have varied choices for there are three versions of our Workday-Pro-Integrations practice materials. At the same time, you are bound to pass the Workday-Pro-Integrations exam and get your desired Workday-Pro-Integrations certification for the validity and accuracy of our Workday-Pro-Integrations study materials.

The mission of Prep4sures is to make the valid and high quality Workday test pdf to help you advance your skills and knowledge and get the Workday-Pro-Integrations exam certification successfully. When you visit our product page, you will find the detail information about Workday-Pro-Integrations Practice Test. You can choose the version according to your actual needs. Workday-Pro-Integrations free demo is available for free downloading, and you can do your decision according to the assessment. 100% pass by our Workday-Pro-Integrations training pdf is our guarantee.

>> Workday-Pro-Integrations Sample Exam <<

Reliable Workday-Pro-Integrations Test Question & Valid Workday-Pro-Integrations Vce Dumps

The key trait of our product is that we keep pace with the changes of syllabus and the latest circumstance to revise and update our Workday-Pro-Integrations study materials, and we are available for one-year free updating to assure you of the reliability of our service. Our company has established a long-term partnership with those who have purchased our Workday-Pro-Integrations Exam guides. We have made all efforts to update our product in order to help you deal with any change, making you confidently take part in the exam.

Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam Sample Questions (Q12-Q17):

NEW QUESTION # 12
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?

A. Configure Integration Attributes with "OTHER" as a Default
B. Configure Integration Maps with a blank Default
C. Configure Integration Maps with "OTHER" as a Default
D. Configure Integration Attributes with a blank Default

Answer: C

Explanation:
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.

NEW QUESTION # 13
Refer to the following scenario to answer the question below.
You have configured a Core Connector: Worker integration, which utilizes the following basic configuration:
* Integration field attributes are configured to output the Position Title and Business Title fields from the Position Data section.
* Integration Population Eligibility uses the field Is Manager which returns true if the worker holds a manager role.
* Transaction Log service has been configured to Subscribe to specific Transaction Types: Position Edit Event.
You launch your integration with the following date launch parameters (Date format of MM/DD/YYYY):
* As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM
* Effective Date: 05/25/2024
* Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM
* Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024
To test your integration, you made a change to a worker named Jeff Gordon who is not assigned to the manager role. You perform an Edit Position on Jeff Gordon and update their business title to a new value. Jeff Gordon's worker history shows the Edit Position Event as being successfully completed with an effective date of 05/24/2024 and an Entry Moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM however Jeff Gordon does not show up in your output.
What configuration element would have to be modified for the integration to include Jeff Gordon in the output?

A. Integration Field Attributes
B. Transaction log subscription
C. Integration Population Eligibility
D. Date launch parameters

Answer: C

Explanation:
The scenario describes a Core Connector: Worker integration with specific configurations, and a test case where Jeff Gordon's data doesn't appear in the output despite an Edit Position event. Let's analyze why Jeff Gordon is excluded and what needs to change:
* Current Configuration:
* Integration Field Attributes: Outputs Position Title and Business Title from Position Data.
* Integration Population Eligibility: Filters workers where "Is Manager" = True (only managers).
* Transaction Log Service: Subscribes to "Position Edit Event" transactions.
* Launch Parameters:
* As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM
* Effective Date: 05/25/2024
* Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM
* Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024
* Test Case:
* Worker: Jeff Gordon (not a manager).
* Action: Edit Position, updating Business Title.
* Event Details: Effective Date 05/24/2024, Entry Moment 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM.
* Result: Jeff Gordon does not appear in the output.
* Analysis:
* Date Parameters: The integration captures changes between the Last Successful As of Entry Moment (05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM) and the current As of Entry Moment (05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM). Jeff's Edit Position event (Entry Moment 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM) falls within this range, and its Effective Date (05/24/2024) is before the integration's Effective Date (05/25/2024), making it eligible from a date perspective.
* Transaction Log: Subscribed to "Position Edit Event," which matches Jeff's action (Edit Position), so the event type is correctly captured.
* Field Attributes: Outputs Position Title and Business Title, and Jeff's update to Business Title aligns with these fields.
* Population Eligibility: Filters for "Is Manager" = True. Jeff Gordon is explicitly noted as "not assigned to the manager role," meaning "Is Manager" = False for him. This filter excludes Jeff from the population, regardless of the event or date eligibility.
* Why Jeff is Excluded:TheIntegration Population Eligibilityrestriction ("Is Manager" = True) prevents Jeff Gordon from being included, as he isn't a manager. This filter applies to the entire worker population before events or fields are considered, overriding other conditions.
* Option Analysis:
* A. Transaction Log Subscription: Incorrect. The subscription already includes "Position Edit Event," which matches Jeff's action. Modifying this wouldn't address the population filter.
* B. Integration Population Eligibility: Correct. Changing this to include non-managers (e.g., removing the "Is Manager" = True filter or adjusting it to include all employees) would allow Jeff Gordon to appear in the output.
* C. Date Launch Parameters: Incorrect. Jeff's event (05/24/2024) falls within the date range, so the parameters are not the issue.
* D. Integration Field Attributes: Incorrect. The attributes already include Business Title, which Jeff updated, so this configuration is irrelevant to his exclusion.
* Modification Needed:Adjust theIntegration Population Eligibilityto either:
* Remove the "Is Manager" = True filter to include all workers, or
* Modify it to align with the scenario's intent (e.g., "Worker Type equals Employee") if managers were an unintended restriction.
* Implementation:
* Edit the Core Connector: Worker integration.
* Use the related actionConfigure Integration Population Eligibility.
* Remove or adjust the "Is Manager" = True condition.
* Relaunch the integration and verify Jeff Gordon appears in the output.
References from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide:
* Core Connectors & Document Transformation: Section on "Configuring Integration Population Eligibility" explains how eligibility filters the worker population before event processing.
* Integration System Fundamentals: Details how population scoping interacts with event subscriptions and launch parameters.

NEW QUESTION # 14
Refer to the following XML to answer the question below.

You are an integration developer and need to write X8LT to transform the output of an ElB which is using a web service enabled report to output position data along with hiring restrictions around skills. 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:
Job_Skills element by using a series of <xsl:if> elements so as to categorize the job skills data.
Assuming all jobs will have the wd:Job_Skills element, what XSLT syntax would be used to output the text HR Skills if the value of wd:Job_Skills contains the text HR and output NON-HR Skills if the value of wd:
Job_Skills does not contain the text HR?

Answer: D

Explanation:
The task is to write XSLT within a template matching wd:Report_Data/wd:Report_Entry to categorize wd:
Job_Skills data, outputting "HR Skills" if the value contains "HR" and "NON-HR Skills" if it does not, using a series of <xsl:if> elements. The correct syntax must use the contains() function to check for the substring
"HR" within wd:Job_Skills, as the question implies partial matching (e.g., "HR Specialist" or "Senior HR"), not exact equality.
Let's analyze each option:
* Option A:
xml
<job_skill>
<xsl:value-of select="wd:Hiring_Restrictions/wd:Job_Skills='HR'">
<xsl:text>HR Skills</xsl:text>
<xsl:if/>
<xsl:value-of select="not(wd:Hiring_Restrictions/wd:Job_Skills='HR')">
<xsl:text>NON-HR Skills</xsl:text>
<xsl:if/>
</job_skill>
* Issues:
* <xsl:value-of> is misused here. It outputs the result of the expression (e.g., "true" or "false" for a comparison), not the conditional text. The <xsl:text> inside won't execute as intended.
* The = operator checks for exact equality (e.g., wd:Job_Skills must be exactly "HR"), not substring presence, which contradicts the requirement to check if "HR" is contained within the value.
* <xsl:if/> is malformed (self-closing without a test attribute) and misplaced.
* Verdict: Incorrect syntax and logic.
* Option B:
xml
<job_skill>
<xsl:value-of select="contains(wd:Hiring_Restrictions/wd:Job_Skills, 'HR')">
<xsl:text>HR Skills</xsl:text>
<xsl:if/>
<xsl:value-of select="not(contains(wd:Hiring_Restrictions/wd:Job_Skills, 'HR'))">
<xsl:text>NON-HR Skills</xsl:text>
<xsl:if/>
</job_skill>
* Issues:
* Similar to A, <xsl:value-of> outputs the boolean result of contains() ("true" or "false"), not the conditional text "HR Skills" or "NON-HR Skills."
* The <xsl:text> elements are inside invalid <xsl:if/> tags (self-closing, no test), rendering them ineffective.
* While contains() is correct for substring checking, the structure fails to meet the <xsl:if> requirement.
* Verdict: Incorrect structure despite using contains().
* Option C:
xml
<job_skill>
<xsl:if test="wd:Hiring_Restrictions/wd:Job_Skills='HR'">
<xsl:text>HR Skills</xsl:text>
</xsl:if>
<xsl:if test="not(wd:Hiring_Restrictions/wd:Job_Skills='HR')">
<xsl:text>NON-HR Skills</xsl:text>
</xsl:if>
</job_skill>
* Analysis:
* Uses <xsl:if> correctly with test attributes, satisfying the "series of <xsl:if> elements" requirement.
* However, wd:Job_Skills='HR' tests for exact equality, not whether "HR" is contained within the value. For example, "HR Specialist" would fail this test, outputting "NON-HR Skills" incorrectly.
* Verdict: Semantically incorrect due to exact matching instead of substring checking.
* Option D:
xml
<job_skill>
<xsl:if test="contains(wd:Hiring_Restrictions/wd:Job_Skills, 'HR')">
<xsl:text>HR Skills</xsl:text>
</xsl:if>
<xsl:if test="not(contains(wd:Hiring_Restrictions/wd:Job_Skills, 'HR'))">
<xsl:text>NON-HR Skills</xsl:text>
</xsl:if>
</job_skill>
* Analysis:
* Correctly uses <xsl:if> with test attributes, aligning with the question's requirement.
* The contains() function properly checks if "HR" is a substring within wd:Job_Skills (e.g.,
"HR Manager" or "Senior HR" returns true).
* not(contains()) ensures the opposite condition, covering all cases (mutually exclusive).
* <xsl:text> outputs the exact strings "HR Skills" or "NON-HR Skills" as required.
* Note: The closing tag </xs1:if> is a typo in the option (should be </xsl:if>), but in context, it's an obvious formatting error, not a substantive issue.
* Verdict: Correct logic and syntax, making D the best answer.
Correct Implementation in Context:
xml
<xsl:template match="wd:Report_Data/wd:Report_Entry">
<job_skill>
<xsl:if test="contains(wd:Hiring_Restrictions/wd:Job_Skills, 'HR')">
<xsl:text>HR Skills</xsl:text>
</xsl:if>
<xsl:if test="not(contains(wd:Hiring_Restrictions/wd:Job_Skills, 'HR'))">
<xsl:text>NON-HR Skills</xsl:text>
</xsl:if>
</job_skill>
</xsl:template>
* Example Input: <wd:Job_Skills>Senior HR Analyst</wd:Job_Skills> # Output: <job_skill>HR Skills<
/job_skill>
* Example Input: <wd:Job_Skills>IT Specialist</wd:Job_Skills> # Output: <job_skill>NON-HR Skills<
/job_skill>
References:
* Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: "Configure Integration System - TRANSFORMATION" section, detailing <xsl:if> and contains() for conditional XSLT logic in Workday.
* Workday Documentation: "XSLT Transformations in Workday" under EIB, confirming wd: namespace usage and string functions.
* W3C XSLT 1.0 Specification: Section 9.1, "Conditional Processing with <xsl:if>," and Section 11.2,
"String Functions" (contains()).
* Workday Community: Examples of substring-based conditionals in XSLT for report transformations.

NEW QUESTION # 15
What is the limitation when assigning ISUs to integration systems?

A. An ISU can be assigned to only one integration system.
B. An ISU can be assigned to five integration systems.
C. An ISU can be assigned to an unlimited number of integration systems.
D. An ISU can only be assigned to an ISSG and not an integration system.

Answer: A

Explanation:
This question examines the limitations on assigning Integration System Users (ISUs) to integration systems in Workday Pro Integrations. Let's analyze the relationship and evaluate each option to determine the correct answer.
Understanding ISUs and Integration Systems in Workday
* Integration System User (ISU):An ISU is a specialized user account in Workday designed for integrations, functioning as a service account to authenticate and execute integration processes. ISUs are created using the "Create Integration System User" task and are typically configured with settings like disabling UI sessions and setting long session timeouts (e.g., 0 minutes) toprevent expiration during automated processes. ISUs are not human users but are instead programmatic accounts used for API calls, EIBs, Core Connectors, or other integration mechanisms.
* Integration Systems:In Workday, an "integration system" refers to the configuration or setup of an integration, such as an External Integration Business (EIB), Core Connector, or custom integration via web services. Integration systems are defined to handle data exchange between Workday and external systems, and they require authentication, often via an ISU, to execute tasks like data retrieval, transformation, or posting.
* Assigning ISUs to Integration Systems:ISUs are used to authenticate and authorize integration systems to interact with Workday. When configuring an integration system, you assign an ISU to provide the credentials needed for the integration to run. This assignment ensures that the integration can access Workday data and functionalities based on the security permissions granted to the ISU via its associated Integration System Security Group (ISSG).
* Limitation on Assignment:Workday's security model imposes restrictions to maintain control and auditability. Specifically, an ISU is designed to be tied to a single integration system to ensure clear accountability, prevent conflicts, and simplify security management. This limitation prevents an ISU from being reused across multiple unrelated integration systems, reducing the risk of unintended access or data leakage.
Evaluating Each Option
Let's assess each option based on Workday's integration and security practices:
Option A: An ISU can be assigned to five integration systems.
* Analysis:This is incorrect. Workday does not impose a specific numerical limit like "five" for ISU assignments to integration systems. Instead, the limitation is more restrictive: an ISU is typically assigned to only one integration system to ensure focused security and accountability. Allowing an ISU to serve multiple systems could lead to confusion, overlapping permissions, or security risks, which Workday's design avoids.
* Why It Doesn't Fit:There's no documentation or standard practice in Workday Pro Integrations suggesting a limit of five integration systems per ISU. This option is arbitrary and inconsistent with Workday's security model.
Option B: An ISU can be assigned to an unlimited number of integration systems.
* Analysis:This is incorrect. Workday's security best practices do not allow an ISU to be assigned to an unlimited number of integration systems. Allowing this would create security vulnerabilities, as an ISU' s permissions (via its ISSG) could be applied across multiple unrelated systems, potentially leading to unauthorized access or data conflicts. Workday enforces a one-to-one or tightly controlled relationship to maintain auditability and security.
* Why It Doesn't Fit:The principle of least privilege and clear accountability in Workday integrations requires limiting an ISU's scope, not allowing unlimited assignments.
Option C: An ISU can be assigned to only one integration system.
* Analysis:This is correct. In Workday, an ISU is typically assigned to a single integration system to ensure that its credentials and permissions are tightly scoped. This aligns with Workday's security model, where ISUs are created for specific integration purposes (e.g., an EIB, Core Connector, or web service integration). When configuring an integration system, you specify the ISU in the integration setup (e.g., under "Integration System Attributes" or "Authentication" settings), and it is not reused across multiple systems to prevent conflicts or unintended access. This limitation ensures traceability and security, as the ISU's actions can be audited within the context of that single integration.
* Why It Fits:Workday documentation and best practices, including training materials and community forums, emphasize that ISUs are dedicated to specific integrations. For example, when creating an EIB or Core Connector, you assign an ISU, and it is not shared across other integrations unless explicitly reconfigured, which is rare and discouraged for security reasons.
Option D: An ISU can only be assigned to an ISSG and not an integration system.
* Analysis:This is incorrect. While ISUs are indeed assigned to ISSGs to inherit security permissions (as established in Question 26), they are also assigned to integration systems toprovide authentication and authorization for executing integration tasks. The ISU's role includes both: it belongs to an ISSG for permissions and is linked to an integration system for execution. Saying it can only be assigned to an ISSG and not an integration system misrepresents Workday's design, as ISUs are explicitly configured in integration systems (e.g., EIB, Core Connector) to run processes.
* Why It Doesn't Fit:ISUs are integral to integration systems, providing credentials for API calls or data exchange. Excluding assignment to integration systems contradicts Workday's integration framework.
Final Verification
The correct answer is Option C, as Workday limits an ISU to a single integration system to ensure security, accountability, and clarity in integration operations. This aligns with the principle of least privilege, where ISUs are scoped narrowly to avoid overexposure. For example, when setting up a Core Connector: Job Postings (as in Question 25), you assign an ISU specifically for that integration, not multiple ones, unless reconfiguring for a different purpose, which is atypical.
Supporting Documentation
The reasoning is based on Workday Pro Integrations security practices, including:
* Workday Community documentation on creating and managing ISUs and integration systems.
* Tutorials on configuring EIBs, Core Connectors, and web services, which show assigning ISUs to specific integrations (e.g.,Workday Advanced Studio Tutorial).
* Integration security overviews from implementation partners (e.g., NetIQ, Microsoft Learn, Reco.ai) emphasizing one ISU per integration for security.
* Community discussions on Reddit and Workday forums reinforcing that ISUs are tied to single integrations for auditability (r/workday on Reddit).

NEW QUESTION # 16
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 making a request to the Get Job Profiles web service operation. The root template of your XSLT matches on the <wd:
Get_Job_Profiles_Response> element. This root template then applies templates against <wd:Job_Profile>.
What XPath syntax would be used to select the value of the ID element which has a wd:type attribute named Job_Profile_ID when the <xsl:value-of> element is placed within the template which matches on <wd:
Job_Profile>?

A. wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']
B. wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']
C. wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'
D. wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'

Answer: B

Explanation:
As an integration developer working with Workday, you are tasked with transforming the output of an Enterprise Interface Builder (EIB) that calls the Get_Job_Profiles web service operation. The provided XML shows the response from this operation, and you need to write XSLT to select the value of the <wd:ID> element where the wd:type attribute equals "Job_Profile_ID." The root template of your XSLT matches on
<wd:Get_Job_Profiles_Response> and applies templates to <wd:Job_Profile>. Within this template, you use the <xsl:value-of> element to extract the value. Let's analyze the XML structure, the requirement, and each option to determine the correct XPath syntax.
Understanding the XML and Requirement
The XML snippet provided is a SOAP response from the Get_Job_Profiles web service operation in Workday, using the namespace xmlns:wd="urn:com.workday/bsvc" and version wd:version="v43.0". Key elements relevant to the question include:
* The root element is <wd:Get_Job_Profiles_Response>.
* It contains <wd:Response_Data>, which includes <wd:Job_Profile> elements.
* Within <wd:Job_Profile>, there is <wd:Job_Profile_Reference>, which contains multiple <wd:ID> elements, each with a wd:type attribute:
* <wd:ID wd:type="WID">1740d3eca2f2ed9b6174ca7d2ae88c8c</wd:ID>
* <wd:ID wd:type="Job_Profile_ID">Senior_Benefits_Analyst</wd:ID>
The task is to select the value of the <wd:ID> element where wd:type="Job_Profile_ID" (e.g.,
"Senior_Benefits_Analyst") using XPath within an XSLT template that matches <wd:Job_Profile>. The <xsl:
value-of> element outputs the value of the selected node, so you need the correct XPath path from the <wd:
Job_Profile> context to the specific <wd:ID> element with the wd:type attribute value "Job_Profile_ID." Analysis of Options Let's evaluate each option based on the XML structure and XPath syntax rules:
* Option A: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'
* This XPath attempts to navigate from wd:Job_Profile_Reference to wd:ID, then to wd:
type='Job_Profile_ID'. However, there are several issues:
* wd:type='Job_Profile_ID' is not valid XPath syntax. In XPath, to filter based on an attribute value, you use the attribute selector [@attribute='value'], not a direct comparison like wd:
type='Job_Profile_ID'.
* wd:type is an attribute of <wd:ID>, not a child element or node. This syntax would not select the <wd:ID> element itself but would be interpreted as trying to match a nonexistent child node or property, resulting in an error or no match.
* This option is incorrect because it misuses XPath syntax for attribute filtering.
* Option B: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'
* This XPath navigates to wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID and then selects the @wd:type attribute, comparing it to "Job_Profile_ID" with =@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'. However:
* The =@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID' syntax is invalid in XPath. To filter based on an attribute value, you use [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] as a predicate, not an equality comparison in this form.
* This XPath would select the wd:type attribute itself (e.g., the string "Job_Profile_ID"), not the value of the <wd:ID> element. Since <xsl:value-of> expects a node or element value, selecting an attribute directly would not yield the desired "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" value.
* This option is incorrect due to the invalid syntax and inappropriate selection of the attribute instead of the element value.
* Option C: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']
* This XPath navigates from wd:Job_Profile_Reference to wd:ID and uses the predicate [@wd:
type='Job_Profile_ID'] to filter for <wd:ID> elements where the wd:type attribute equals
"Job_Profile_ID."
* In the XML, <wd:Job_Profile_Reference> contains:
* <wd:ID wd:type="WID">1740d3eca2f2ed9b6174ca7d2ae88c8c</wd:ID>
* <wd:ID wd:type="Job_Profile_ID">Senior_Benefits_Analyst</wd:ID>
* The predicate [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] selects the second <wd:ID> element, whose value is "Senior_Benefits_Analyst."
* Since the template matches <wd:Job_Profile>, and <wd:Job_Profile_Reference> is a direct child of <wd:Job_Profile>, this path is correct:
* <wd:Job_Profile> # <wd:Job_Profile_Reference> # <wd:ID[@wd:
type='Job_Profile_ID']>.
* When used with <xsl:value-of select="wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:
type='Job_Profile_ID']"/>, it outputs "Senior_Benefits_Analyst," fulfilling the requirement.
* This option is correct because it uses proper XPath syntax for attribute-based filtering and selects the desired <wd:ID> value.
* Option D: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']
* This XPath is similar to Option C but includes an extra forward slash before the predicate: wd:ID/
[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']. In XPath, predicates like [@attribute='value'] are used directly after the node name (e.g., wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']), not separated by a slash. The extra slash is syntactically incorrect and would result in an error or no match, as it implies navigating to a child node that doesn't exist.
* This option is incorrect due to the invalid syntax.
Why Option C is Correct
Option C, wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'], is the correct XPath syntax because:
* It starts from the context node <wd:Job_Profile> (as the template matches this element) and navigates to <wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID>, using the predicate [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] to filter for the <wd:ID> element with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID".
* It correctly selects the value "Senior_Benefits_Analyst," which is the content of the <wd:ID> element where wd:type="Job_Profile_ID".
* It uses standard XPath syntax for attribute-based filtering, aligning with Workday's XSLT implementation for web service responses.
* When used with <xsl:value-of>, it outputs the required value, fulfilling the question's requirement.
Practical Example in XSLT
Here's how this might look in your XSLT:
<xsl:template match="wd:Job_Profile">
<xsl:value-of select="wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']"/>
</xsl:template>
This would output "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" for the <wd:ID> element with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID" in the XML.
Verification with Workday Documentation
The Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide and SOAP API Reference (available via Workday Community) detail the structure of the Get_Job_Profiles response and how to use XPath in XSLT for transformations. The XML structure shows <wd:Job_Profile_Reference> containing <wd:ID> elements with wd:type attributes, and the guide emphasizes using predicates like [@wd:type='value'] to filter based on attributes. This is a standard practice for navigating Workday web service responses.
Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References
* Section: XSLT Transformations in EIBs- Describes using XSLT to transform web service responses, including selecting elements with XPath and attribute predicates.
* Section: Workday Web Services- Details the Get_Job_Profiles operation and its XML output structure, including <wd:Job_Profile_Reference> and <wd:ID> with wd:type attributes.
* Section: XPath Syntax- Explains how to use predicates like [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] for attribute- based filtering in Workday XSLT.
* Workday Community SOAP API Reference - Provides examples of XPath navigation for Workday web service responses, including attribute selection.
Option C is the verified answer, as it correctly selects the <wd:ID> value with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID" using the appropriate XPath syntax within the <wd:Job_Profile> template context.

NEW QUESTION # 17
......

Now I want to introduce the online version of our Workday-Pro-Integrations learning guide to you. The most advantage of the online version is that this version can support all electronica equipment. If you choose the online version of our Workday-Pro-Integrations study materials, you can use our products by your any electronica equipment including computer, telephone, IPAD and so on. We believe the online version of our Workday-Pro-Integrationspractice quiz will be very convenient for you.

Reliable Workday-Pro-Integrations Test Question: https://www.prep4sures.top/Workday-Pro-Integrations-exam-dumps-torrent.html

Workday Workday-Pro-Integrations Sample Exam If you're looking for reliable solutions to ensure the professional growth and cost-effective education of your corporate staff, feel free to contact us today, Prep4sures Reliable Workday-Pro-Integrations Test Question have latest Question Bank from Actual Exams in order to help you memorize and pass your exam at very first attempt, If you still feel annoying about this question you can consider our Prep4sures Workday-Pro-Integrations test questions and dumps which help more than 23674 candidates pass Workday Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam exam every year.

The Basics of Creating a Workflow, Here we are importing Sample Workday-Pro-Integrations Questions Answers `java.awt.` which means all the classes in the java.awt package, just as means all the files in a directory.

If you're looking for reliable solutions to ensure Sample Workday-Pro-Integrations Questions Answers the professional growth and cost-effective education of your corporate staff, feel free to contact us today, Prep4sures have latest Question Workday-Pro-Integrations Bank from Actual Exams in order to help you memorize and pass your exam at very first attempt.

Enhance Your Exam Performance With Workday Workday-Pro-Integrations Web-Based Practice Test

If you still feel annoying about this question you can consider our Prep4sures Workday-Pro-Integrations test questions and dumps which help more than 23674 candidates pass Workday Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam exam every year.

So you have nothing to worry while choosing our Workday-Pro-Integrations exam guide materials, So will you.