MCPA-Level-1 Practice Test

A higher number of discoverable API-related assets in the application network

Explanation: Explanation
Correct Answer: A higher number of discoverable API-related assets in the application
network.
*****************************************
>> We do NOT get faster response times in fine-grained approach when compared to
coarse-grained approach.
>> In fact, we get faster response times from a network having coarse-grained APIs
compared to a network having fine-grained APIs model. The reasons are below.
Fine-grained approach:
1. will have more APIs compared to coarse-grained
2. So, more orchestration needs to be done to achieve a functionality in business process.
3. Which means, lots of API calls to be made. So, more connections will needs to be
established. So, obviously more hops, more network i/o, more number of integration points
compared to coarse-grained approach where fewer APIs with bulk functionality embedded
in them.
4. That is why, because of all these extra hops and added latencies, fine-grained approach
will have bit more response times compared to coarse-grained.
5. Not only added latencies and connections, there will be more resources used up in finegrained
approach due to more number of APIs.
That's why, fine-grained APIs are good in a way to expose more number of resuable assets
in your network and make them discoverable. However, needs more maintenance, taking
care of integration points, connections, resources with a little compromise w.r.t network
hops and response times.

By refining the response definitions by adding the x-ratelimit-* response headers with
description, type, and example

Explanation: Explanation
Correct Answer: By refining the response definitions by adding the x-ratelimit-* response
headers with description, type, and example
*****************************************

Data on past API invocations to help identify anomalies and usage patterns across various APIs

Explanation: Explanation
Correct Answer: Data on past API invocations to help identify anomalies and usage
patterns across various APIs
*****************************************
API Invocation metrics provided by Anypoint Platform:
>> Does NOT provide any Return Of Investment (ROI) related information. So the option
suggesting it is OUT.
>> Does NOT provide any information w.r.t how APIs are reused, whether there is effective
usage of APIs or not etc...
>> Does NOT prodive any prediction information as such to help us proactively identify any
future policy violations.
So, the kind of data/information we can get from such metrics is on past API invocations to
help identify anomalies and usage patterns across various APIs.
Reference:
https://usermanual.wiki/Document/APAAppNetstudentManual02may2018.991784750.pdf

The test runs immediately after the Mule application has been compiled and packaged

Explanation: Explanation
Correct Answer: The test runs immediately after the Mule application has been compiled
and packaged
*****************************************
>> Integration tests are the last layer of tests we need to add to be fully covered.
>> These tests actually run against Mule running with your full configuration in place and are tested from external source as they work in PROD.
>> These tests exercise the application as a whole with actual transports enabled. So,
external systems are affected when these tests run.
So, these tests do NOT run immediately after the Mule application has been compiled and
packaged.
FYI... Unit Tests are the one that run immediately after the Mule application has been
compiled and packaged.
Reference: https://docs.mulesoft.com/mule-runtime/3.9/testing-strategies#integrationtesting

JSON threat protection

Explanation: Explanation
Correct Answer: JSON threat protection
*****************************************
Fact: Technically, there are no restrictions on what policy can be applied in what layer. Any
policy can be applied on any layer API. However, context should also be considered
properly before blindly applying the policies on APIs.
That is why, this question asked for a policy that would LEAST likely be applied to a
Process API.
From the given options:
>> All policies except "JSON threat protection" can be applied without hesitation to the
APIs in Process tier.
>> JSON threat protection policy ideally fits for experience APIs to prevent suspicious
JSON payload coming from external API clients. This covers more of a security aspect by
trying to avoid possibly malicious and harmful JSON payloads from external clients calling
experience APIs.
As external API clients are NEVER allowed to call Process APIs directly and also these
kind of malicious and harmful JSON payloads are always stopped at experience API layer
only using this policy, it is LEAST LIKELY that this same policy is again applied on Process
Layer API.