Blog - Academy

0.00 (0.00)

Sam Young Sam Young

0 Course • 0 Student

0.00 (0.00)

Biography

High Hit Rate Workday Reliable Workday-Pro-Integrations Braindumps Ebook | Try Free Demo before Purchase

If you have your own job and have little time to prepare for the exam, you can choose us. Workday-Pro-Integrations exam bootcamp of us is high quality, and you just need to spend about 48to 72 hours, you can pass the exam. In addition, Workday-Pro-Integrations exam bootcamp contains most of knowledge points of the exam, and you can also improve you professional ability in the process of learning. We offer you free update for 365 days after you buy Workday-Pro-Integrations Exam Dumps. The update version will be sent to your email automatically.

Doubtlessly, clearing the Workday-Pro-Integrations certification exam is a challenging task. You can make this task considerably easier by studying with actual Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam (Workday-Pro-Integrations) Questions of NewPassLeader. We provide you with a triple-formatted Workday-Pro-Integrations Practice Test material, made under the supervision of experts. This product has everything you need to clear the challenging Workday-Pro-Integrations exam in one go.

>> Reliable Workday-Pro-Integrations Braindumps Ebook <<

Exam Workday-Pro-Integrations Review | Workday-Pro-Integrations Real Dumps

NewPassLeader is one of the leading platforms that has been helping Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam (Workday-Pro-Integrations) exam candidates for many years. Over this long time period we have helped Workday-Pro-Integrations exam candidates in their preparation. They got help from NewPassLeader Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam practice questions and easily got success in the final Workday-Pro-Integrations Certification Exam. You can also trust NewPassLeader Workday-Pro-Integrations exam dumps and start preparation with complete peace of mind and satisfaction.

Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam Sample Questions (Q19-Q24):

NEW QUESTION # 19
What is the limitation when assigning ISUs to integration systems?

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

Answer: D

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 # 20
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: B

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 # 21
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 a template against <wd:Job_Profile>.
What XPath syntax would be used to select the value of the wd:Job_Code element 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/wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code
C. wd:Job_Profile_Data[@wd:Job_Code]
D. wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code

Answer: D

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:
Job_Code> element. The root template of your XSLT matches on <wd:Get_Job_Profiles_Response> and applies a template to <wd:Job_Profile>. Within this template, you use the <xsl:value-of> element to extract the <wd:Job_Code> 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 are:
* <wd:Job_Profile_Reference>, which contains <wd:ID> elements (e.g., a Job_Profile_ID).
* <wd:Job_Profile_Data>, which contains <wd:Job_Code> with the value
Senior_Benefits_Analyst.
The task is to select the value of <wd:Job_Code> (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 <wd:Job_Code>.
Analysis of Options
Let's evaluate each option based on the XML structure and XPath syntax rules:
* Option A: wd:Job_Profile/wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code
* This XPath starts from wd:Job_Profile and navigates to wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code.
However, in the XML, <wd:Job_Profile> is the parent element, and <wd:Job_Profile_Data> is a direct child containing <wd:Job_Code>. The path wd:Job_Profile/wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:
Job_Code is technically correct in terms of structure, as it follows the hierarchy:
* <wd:Job_Profile> # <wd:Job_Profile_Data> # <wd:Job_Code>.
* However, since the template matches <wd:Job_Profile>, the context node is already <wd:
Job_Profile>. You don't need to include wd:Job_Profile/ at the beginning of the XPath unless navigating from a higher level. Starting directly with wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code (Option C) is more concise and appropriate for the context. This option is technically valid but redundant and less efficient, making it less preferred compared to Option C.
* Option B: wd:Job_Profile_Data[@wd:Job_Code]
* This XPath uses an attribute selector ([@wd:Job_Code]) to filter <wd:Job_Profile_Data> based on an attribute named wd:Job_Code. However, examining the XML, <wd:Job_Profile_Data> does not have a wd:Job_Code attribute-it has a child element <wd:Job_Code> with the value
"Senior_Benefits_Analyst." The [@attribute] syntax is used for attributes, not child elements, so this XPath is incorrect. It would not select the <wd:Job_Code> value and would likely return no results or an error. This option is invalid.
* Option C: wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code
* This XPath starts from wd:Job_Profile_Data (a direct child of <wd:Job_Profile>) and navigates to wd:Job_Code. Since the template matches <wd:Job_Profile>, the contextnode is <wd:
Job_Profile>, and wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code correctly points to the <wd:Job_Code> element within <wd:Job_Profile_Data>. This path is:
* Concise and appropriate for the context.
* Directly selects the value "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" when used with <xsl:value-of>.
* Matches the XML structure, as <wd:Job_Profile_Data> contains <wd:Job_Code> as a child.
* This is the most straightforward and correct option for selecting the <wd:Job_Code> value within the <wd:Job_Profile> template.
* Option D: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']
* This XPath navigates to <wd:Job_Profile_Reference> (a child of <wd:Job_Profile>) and then to
<wd:ID> with an attribute wd:type="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 XPath wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] selects the <wd:ID> element with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID", which has the value "Senior_Benefits_Analyst." However, this is not the <wd:Job_Code> value-the <wd:Job_Code> is a separate element under
<wd:Job_Profile_Data>, not <wd:Job_Profile_Reference>. The question specifically asks for the
<wd:Job_Code> value, so this option is incorrect, as it selects a different piece of data (the job profile ID, not the job code).
Why Option C is Correct
Option C, wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code, 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_Data/wd:Job_Code>, which directly selects the <wd:Job_Code> element's value ("Senior_Benefits_Analyst").
* It is concise and aligns with standard XPath navigation in XSLT, avoiding unnecessary redundancy (unlike Option A) or incorrect attribute selectors (unlike Option B).
* It matches the XML structure, where <wd:Job_Profile_Data> is a child of <wd:Job_Profile> and contains <wd:Job_Code> as a child.
* When used with <xsl:value-of select="wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code"/> in the template, it outputs the job code value, fulfilling the requirement.
Practical Example in XSLT
Here's how this might look in your XSLT:
xml
WrapCopy
<xsl:template match="wd:Job_Profile">
<xsl:value-of select="wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code"/>
</xsl:template>
This would output "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" for the <wd:Job_Code> element 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_Data> as the container for job profile details, including <wd:
Job_Code>. The guide emphasizes using relative XPath paths within templates to navigate from the matched element (e.g., <wd:Job_Profile>) to child elements like <wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code>.
Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References
* Section: XSLT Transformations in EIBs- Describes using XSLT to transform web service responses, including selecting elements with XPath.
* Section: Workday Web Services- Details the Get_Job_Profiles operation and its XML output structure, including <wd:Job_Profile_Data> and <wd:Job_Code>.
* Section: XPath Syntax- Explains how to navigate XML hierarchies in Workday XSLT, using relative paths like wd:Job_Profile_Data/wd:Job_Code from a <wd:Job_Profile> context.
* Workday Community SOAP API Reference - Provides examples of XPath navigation for Workday web service responses.
Option C is the verified answer, as it correctly selects the <wd:Job_Code> value using the appropriate XPath syntax within the <wd:Job_Profile> template context.

NEW QUESTION # 22
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 currentlyhave a template which matches on wd:Dependents_Group to iterate over each dependent. Within the template which matches on wd:Dependents_Group you would like to output a relationship code by using an <xsl:choose> statement.
What XSLT syntax would be used to output SP when the dependent relationship is spouse, output CH when the dependent relationship is child, otherwise output OTHER?

Answer: A

Explanation:
In Workday integrations, XSLT is used to transform XML data, such as the output from an Enterprise Interface Builder (EIB) or a web service-enabled report, into a desired format for third-party systems. In this scenario, you need to write XSLT to process wd:Dependents_Group elements and output a relationship code based on the value of the wd:Relationship attribute or element. The requirement is tooutput "SP" for a
"Spouse" relationship, "CH" for a "Child" relationship, and "OTHER" for any other relationship, using an
<xsl:choose> statement within a template matching wd:Dependents_Group.
Here's why option C is correct:
* XSLT <xsl:choose> Structure: The <xsl:choose> element in XSLT provides conditional logic similar to a switch statement. It evaluates conditions in <xsl:when> elements sequentially, executing the first matching condition, and uses <xsl:otherwise> for any case that doesn't match.
* Relationship as an Attribute: Based on the provided XML snippet, wd:Relationship is an attribute (e.
g., <wd:Relationship>Spouse</wd:Relationship> within wd:Dependents_Group). However, in Workday XML for integrations, wd:Relationship is often represented as an attribute (@wd:
Relationship) rather than a child element, especially in contexts like dependent data in reports. The syntax @wd:Relationship in the test attribute of <xsl:when> correctly references this attribute, aligning with Workday's typical XML structure for such data.
* Condition Matching:
* The first <xsl:when test="@wd:Relationship='Spouse'">SP</xsl:when> checks if the wd:
Relationship attribute equals "Spouse" and outputs "SP" if true.
* The second <xsl:when test="@wd:Relationship='Child'">CH</xsl:when> checks if the wd:
Relationship attribute equals "Child" and outputs "CH" if true.
* The <xsl:otherwise>OTHER</xsl:otherwise> handles all other cases, outputting "OTHER" if the relationship is neither "Spouse" nor "Child."
* Context in Template: Since the template matches on wd:Dependents_Group, the test conditions operate on the current wd:Dependents_Group element and its attributes, ensuring the correct relationship code is output for each dependent. The XML snippet shows wd:Relationship as an element, but Workday documentation and integration practices often standardize it as an attribute in XSLT transformations, making @wd:Relationship appropriate.
Why not the other options?
* A.
xml
WrapCopy
<xsl:choose>
<xsl:when test="wd:Relationship='Spouse'">SP</xsl:when>
<xsl:when test="wd:Relationship='Child'">CH</xsl:when>
<xsl:otherwise>OTHER</xsl:otherwise>
</xsl:choose>
This assumes wd:Relationship is a child element of wd:Dependents_Group, not an attribute. The XML snippet shows wd:Relationship as an element, but in Workday integrations, XSLT often expects attributes for efficiency and consistency, especially in report outputs. Using wd:Relationship without @ would not match the attribute-based structure commonly used, making it incorrect for this context.
* B.
xml
WrapCopy
<xsl:choose>
<xsl:when test="@wd:Relationship='Spouse'">SP</xsl:when>
<xsl:when test="@wd:Relationship='Child'">CH</xsl:when>
<xsl:otherwise>OTHER</xsl:otherwise>
</xsl:choose>
This correctly uses @wd:Relationship for an attribute but has a logical flaw: if wd:Relationship='Child', the second <xsl:when> would output "CH," but the order of conditions matters. However, the primaryissue is that it doesn't match the exact structure or intent as clearly as option C, and Workday documentation often specifies exact attribute-based conditions like those in option C.
* D.
xml
WrapCopy
<xsl:choose>
<xsl:when test="/wd:Relationship='Spouse'">SP</xsl:when>
<xsl:when test="/wd:Relationship='Child'">CH</xsl:when>
<xsl:otherwise>OTHER</xsl:otherwise>
</xsl:choose>
This uses an absolute path (/wd:Relationship), which searches for a wd:Relationship element at the root of the XML document, not within the current wd:Dependents_Group context. This would not work correctly for processing dependents in the context of the template matching wd:Dependents_Group, making it incorrect.
To implement this in XSLT:
* Within your template matching wd:Dependents_Group, you would include the <xsl:choose> statement from option C to evaluate the wd:Relationship attribute and output the appropriate relationship code ("SP," "CH," or "OTHER") based on its value. This ensures the transformation aligns with Workday's XML structure and integration requirements for processing dependent data in an EIB or web service- enabled report, even though the provided XML shows wd:Relationship as an element-XSLT transformations often normalize to attributes for consistency.
References:
* Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: Section on "XSLT Transformations for Workday Integrations"
- Details the use of <xsl:choose>, <xsl:when>, <xsl:otherwise>, and XPath for conditional logic in XSLT, including handling attributes like @wd:Relationship.
* 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 XSLT to transform dependent data, including attribute-based conditions.
* Workday Reporting and Analytics Guide: Section on "Web Service-Enabled Reports" - Covers integrating report outputs with XSLT for transformations, including examples of conditional logic for relationship codes.

NEW QUESTION # 23
You need to filter a custom report to only show workers that have been terminated after a user-prompted date.
How do you combine conditions in the filter to meet this requirement?

A. Worker Status is equal to the value "Terminated" OR Termination Date is greater than a value retrieved from a prompt
B. Worker Status is equal to the value "Terminated" AND Termination Date is greater than a value retrieved from a prompt.
C. Worker Status is equal to the value retrieved from a prompt AND Termination Date is less than a value retrieved from a prompt.
D. Worker Status is equal to the value retrieved from a prompt OR Termination Date is equal to a value retrieved from a prompt.

Answer: B

Explanation:
The requirement is to filter a custom report to show only workers terminated after a user-prompted date. In Workday, filters are defined in the Filter tab of the custom report definition, and conditions can be combined using AND/OR logic to refine the dataset. Let's analyze the requirement and options:
* Key Conditions:
* Workers must beterminated, so the "Worker Status" field must equal "Terminated."
* The termination must occuraftera user-specified date, so the "Termination Date" must be greater than the prompted value.
* Both conditions must be true for a worker to appear in the report, requiring anANDcombination.
* Option Analysis:
* A. Worker Status is equal to the value "Terminated" OR Termination Date is greater than a value retrieved from a prompt: Incorrect. Using OR means the report would include workers who are terminated (regardless of date) OR workers with a termination date after the prompt (even if not terminated), which doesn't meet the strict requirement of terminated workers after a specific date.
* B. Worker Status is equal to the value retrieved from a prompt AND Termination Date is less than a value retrieved from a prompt: Incorrect. Worker Status shouldn't be a prompted value (it's fixed as "Terminated"), and "less than" would show terminations before the date, not after.
* C. Worker Status is equal to the value retrieved from a prompt OR Termination Date is equal to a value retrieved from a prompt: Incorrect. Worker Status shouldn't be prompted, and
"equal to" limits the filter to exact matches, not "after" the date. OR logic also broadens the scope incorrectly.
* D. Worker Status is equal to the value "Terminated" AND Termination Date is greater than a value retrieved from a prompt: Correct. This ensures workers are terminated (fixed value) AND their termination date is after the user-entered date, precisely meeting the requirement.
* Implementation:
* In the custom report's Filter tab, add two conditions:
* Field: Worker Status, Operator: equals, Value: "Terminated".
* Field: Termination Date, Operator: greater than, Value: Prompt for Date (configured as a report prompt).
* Set the logical operator between conditions toAND.
* Test with a sample date to verify only terminated workers after that date appear.
References from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide:
* Workday Report Writer Fundamentals: Section on "Creating and Managing Filters" details combining conditions with AND/OR logic and using prompts.
* Integration System Fundamentals: Notes how filtered reports support integration data sources with dynamic user inputs.

NEW QUESTION # 24
......

Our offers don't stop here. If our customers want to evaluate the Workday Workday-Pro-Integrations exam questions before paying us, they can download a free demo as well. Giving its customers real and updated Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam (Workday-Pro-Integrations) questions is NewPassLeader's major objective. Another great advantage is the money-back promise according to terms and conditions. Download and start using our Workday Workday-Pro-Integrations Valid Dumps to pass the Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam (Workday-Pro-Integrations) certification exam on your first try.

Exam Workday-Pro-Integrations Review: https://www.newpassleader.com/Workday/Workday-Pro-Integrations-exam-preparation-materials.html

Passing the test certification can prove your outstanding major ability in some area and if you want to pass the Workday-Pro-Integrations test smoothly you’d better buy our Workday-Pro-Integrations test guide, We guarantee that you can pass the Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam exam easily once you practice with our Workday-Pro-Integrations reliable exam reviews for 20-30 hours, Workday Reliable Workday-Pro-Integrations Braindumps Ebook In the competitive society, if you want to compete with others, you should equip yourself with strong technological skills.

Recursive Function Definitions, Documentation Workday-Pro-Integrations and Training, Passing the test certification can prove your outstanding major ability in some area and if you want to pass the Workday-Pro-Integrations test smoothly you’d better buy our Workday-Pro-Integrations test guide.

Pass Guaranteed 2025 Workday-Pro-Integrations: Marvelous Reliable Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam Braindumps Ebook

We guarantee that you can pass the Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam exam easily once you practice with our Workday-Pro-Integrations reliable exam reviews for 20-30 hours, In the competitive society, if you want Exam Workday-Pro-Integrations Review to compete with others, you should equip yourself with strong technological skills.

With our Workday-Pro-Integrations exam braindumps, you can not only learn the specialized knowledge of this subject to solve the problems on the work, but also you can get the Workday-Pro-Integrations certification to compete for a higher position.

And you will find that passing the Workday-Pro-Integrations exam is as easy as pie.

Courses

No course yet.

Sam Young Sam Young

Biography

Courses

Quick Links

Resources

Support