HOTSPOT - You need to ensure that the solution meets the data security and compliance requirements. What should you recommend? To answer, select the appropriate options in the answer area. NOTE: Each correct selection is worth one point. Hot Area:
Suggested Answer:
Box 1: Assign: Cascade None - Scenario: Worker skill records must be archived after ten years and are then removed from the main system. Assign: The referenced table record owner is changed. Cascade None: Do nothing. Incorrect Answers: Cascade All: Perform the action on all referencing table records associated with the referenced table record.
Box 2: Delete: Restrict - Scenario: Worker information must not be deleted from the system while skill and job placement history records for the worker exist in the system. Referential, Restrict Delete: In a referential, restrict delete relationship between two tables, you can navigate to any related rows. Actions taken on the parent row will not be applied to the child row, but the parent row cannot be deleted while the child row exists. This is useful if you do not want child rows to become orphaned. This forces the user to delete all of the children before deleting the parent. Reference: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powerapps/maker/data-platform/data-platform-entity-lookup
Actually one of the issues is this:
--- Recruiters report that they cannot see historical job placement data for workers.
So I go with Assign: CASCADE ALL
Don't forget that historical Job is in the on-premises system, that's mean you can use virtual tabel and data is not stored in dataverse, only CASCADE NONE is supported
https://github.com/miberr/powerapps-docs/blob/main/powerapps-docs/maker/data-platform/limits-tshoot-virtual-tables.md
Answer :
1. CASCADE NONE
2. Delete Restrict
a worker transfers to a new client company ---> how does this affect 'assign'?
I mean you reassign owners, which are the primary recruiters.
you could make a lookup to an account. yes, but not reassign a contact from one account to another. weird stuff. if you reassign a worker from one recruiter to another, nothing should cascade (the owner of the old records probably remain the old recruiters).
Recruiters report that they cannot see historical job placement data for workers.
The solution must provide a worker appointment booking system that can access worker historical job placement data.
First Up staff members must be able to view and update worker records. They must be able to see current and historical job placement data on the same form in the new solution.
I go for: cascade none
Why on earth are an IT recruitment company doing this?
"First Up uses an on-premises system to manage current and historical patient data including medications and medical visits."
This section is not available anymore. Please use the main Exam Page.PL-600 Exam Questions
Log in to ExamTopics
Sign in:
Community vote distribution
A (35%)
C (25%)
B (20%)
Other
Most Voted
A voting comment increases the vote count for the chosen answer by one.
Upvoting a comment with a selected answer will also increase the vote count towards that answer by one.
So if you see a comment that you already agree with, you can upvote it instead of posting a new comment.
ClairFraser
Highly Voted 2 years, 1 month agoWASSIM2020
2 months, 3 weeks agoSkada
Highly Voted 1 year, 6 months agoMrEz
Most Recent 7 months, 2 weeks agobgcarter
10 months, 1 week agoTestingCRM
2 years, 7 months agogiogo
2 years, 8 months ago