MuleSoft-Platform-Architect-I Practice Test

Explanation

Correct Answer: When a new required field is added to the method called by the API client *****************************************

>> Generally, the logic on API clients need to be updated when the API contract breaks. >> When a new method or a child method is added to an API , the API client does not break as it can still continue to use its existing method. So these two options are out.

>> We are left for two more where "datatype of the response if changed" and "a new required field is added".

>> Changing the datatype of the response does break the API contract. However, the question is insisting on the "invocation" logic and not about the response handling logic. The API client can still invoke the API successfully and receive the response but the response will have a different datatype for some field.

>> Adding a new required field will break the API's invocation contract. When adding a new required field, the API contract breaks the RAML or API spec agreement that the API client/API consumer and API provider has between them. So this requires the API client invocation logic to also be updated.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Bundle properties files for each environment into the Mule API implementation's deployable archive, then promote the Mule API implementation to the Production environment using Anypoint CLI or the Anypoint Platform REST APIs

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

>> Anypoint Exchange is for asset discovery and documentation. It has got no provision to modify the properties of Mule API implementations at all.

>> API Manager is for managing API instances, their contracts, policies and SLAs. It has also got no provision to modify the properties of API implementations.

>> API policies are to address Non-functional requirements of APIs and has again got no provision to modify the properties of API implementations.

So, the right way and recommended way to do this as part of development practice is to bundle properties files for each environment into the Mule API implementation and just point and refer to respective file per environment.

Explanation

Correct Answer: Search Anypoint exchange for a suitable existing fallback API, and then implement invocations to this fallback API in addition to the order API

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

>> It is not ideal and good approach, until unless there is a pre-approved agreement with the API clients that they will receive a HTTP 3xx temporary redirect status code and they have to implement fallback logic their side to call another API.

>> Creating separate entry of same Order API in API manager would just create an another instance of it on top of same API implementation. So, it does NO GOOD by using clone od same API as a fallback API. Fallback API should be ideally a different API implementation that is not same as primary one.

>> There is NO option currently provided by Anypoint HTTP Connector that allows us to invoke a fallback API when we receive certain HTTP status codes in response.

The only statement TRUE in the given options is to Search Anypoint exchange for a suitable existing fallback API, and then implement invocations to this fallback API in addition to the order API.

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 faulttolerant 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.