Amazon
Avaya
Cisco
CompTIA
CrowdStrike
EC-Council
EXIN
Fortinet
Google
ISC
ISC2
ITIL
Juniper
Microsoft
NVIDIA
Okta
Palo Alto Networks
Salesforce
All Vendors
  1. Home
  2. Workday
  3. Workday-Pro-Integrations

Workday Workday-Pro-Integrations Exam (page: 2)
Workday Pro Integrations Certification
Updated on: 12-Feb-2026

Viewing Page 2 of 11
Workday-Pro-Integrations PDF 77 Questions

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?

  1. Configure Integration Maps with a blank Default
  2. Configure Integration Attributes with a blank Default
  3. Configure Integration Maps with "OTHER" as a Default
  4. Configure Integration Attributes with "OTHER" as a Default

Answer(s): 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 Maps are 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 action Configure Integration Maps.

Create a map for the "Marital Status" field (e.g., "Married" "M," "Single" "S").

Set the Default Value to "OTHER" in the map configuration.

Test the output to ensure mapped values use vendor codes and unmapped values return "OTHER."

Reference 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.



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.

What configuration is required to ensure that when outputting phone number only the home phone number is included in the output?

  1. Configure an integration map to map the phone type.
  2. Include the phone type integration field attribute.
  3. Configure the phone type integration attribute.
  4. Configure an integration field override to include phone type.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The scenario involves a Core Connector: Worker integration using DIS to export a full file of employee personal data, with the requirement to output only the home phone number when including phone data. Workday's "Phone Number" field is multi-instance, meaning a worker can have multiple phone types (e.g., Home, Work, Mobile). Let's determine the configuration:

Requirement:Filter the multi-instance "Phone Number" field to include only the "Home" phone number in the output file. This involves specifying which instance of the phone data to extract.

Integration Field Attributes:In Core Connectors, Integration Field Attributes allow you to refine how multi-instance fields are handled in the output. For the "Phone Number" field, you can set an attribute like "Phone Type" to "Home" to ensure only home phone numbers are included. This is a field-level configuration that filters instances without requiring a calculated field or override.

Option Analysis:

A . Configure an integration map to map the phone type: Incorrect. Integration Maps transform field values (e.g., "United States" to "USA"), not filter multi-instance data like selecting a specific phone type.

B . Include the phone type integration field attribute: Correct. This configures the "Phone Number" field to output only instances where the phone type is "Home," directly meeting the requirement.

C . Configure the phone type integration attribute: Incorrect. "Integration attribute" refers to integration-level settings (e.g., file format), not field-specific configurations. The correct term is "integration field attribute."

D . Configure an integration field override to include phone type: Incorrect. Integration Field Overrides are used to replace a field's value with a calculated field or custom value, not to filter multi-instance data like phone type.

Implementation:

Edit the Core Connector: Worker integration.

Navigate to the Integration Field Attributes section for the "Phone Number" field.

Set the "Phone Type" attribute to "Home" (or equivalent reference ID for Home phone).

Test the output file to confirm only home phone numbers are included.

Reference from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide:

Core Connectors & Document Transformation: Section on "Integration Field Attributes" explains filtering multi-instance fields like phone numbers by type.

Integration System Fundamentals: Notes how Core Connectors handle multi-instance data with field- level attributes.



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.

What configuration is required to ensure that only employees, and not contingent workers, are output by this integration?

  1. Configure the Integration Population Eligibility.
  2. Configure a map for worker type in the Integration Maps.
  3. Configure worker type in the Integration Field Attributes.
  4. Configure eligibility in the Integration Field Overrides.

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The scenario involves a Core Connector: Worker integration using DIS to export a full file of personal data, restricted to employees only (excluding contingent workers). In Workday, the Worker business object includes both employees and contingent workers, so a filter is needed to limit the population.
Let's explore the configuration:

Requirement:Ensure the integration outputs only employees, not contingent workers. This is a population-level filter, not a field transformation or override.

Integration Population Eligibility:In Core Connectors, the Configure Integration Population Eligibility related action defines which workers are included in the integration's dataset. You can set eligibility rules, such as "Worker Type equals Employee" (or exclude "Contingent Worker"), to filter the population before data is extracted. For a full file export (no change detection), this ensures the entire output is limited to employees.

Option Analysis:

A . Configure the Integration Population Eligibility: Correct. This filters the worker population to employees only, aligning with the requirement at the dataset level.

B . Configure a map for worker type in the Integration Maps: Incorrect. Integration Maps transform field values (e.g., "Employee" to "EMP"), not filter the population of workers included in the extract.

C . Configure worker type in the Integration Field Attributes: Incorrect. Integration Field Attributes refine how a field is output (e.g., phone type), not the overall population eligibility.

D . Configure eligibility in the Integration Field Overrides: Incorrect. Integration Field Overrides replace field values with custom data (e.g., a calculated field), not define the population of workers.

Implementation:

Edit the Core Connector: Worker integration.

Use the related action Configure Integration Population Eligibility.

Add a rule: "Worker Type equals Employee" (or exclude "Contingent Worker").

Save and test to ensure only employee data is exported.

Reference from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide:

Core Connectors & Document Transformation: Section on "Configuring Integration Population Eligibility" explains filtering the worker population for outbound integrations.

Integration System Fundamentals: Discusses population scoping in Core Connectors to meet specific export criteria.



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.

What configuration is required to output the value of a calculated field which you created for inclusion in this integration?

  1. Configure Integration Field Attributes.
  2. Configure Integration Field Overrides.
  3. Configure Integration Attributes.
  4. Configure Integration Maps.

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The scenario involves a Core Connector: Worker integration using the Data Initialization Service (DIS) to export a full file of employee personal data, with a requirement to include a calculated field in the output. Core Connectors rely on predefined field mappings, but custom calculated fields need specific configuration to be included. Let's analyze the solution:

Requirement:Output the value of a calculated field created for this integration. In Workday, calculated fields are custom-built (e.g., using Report Writer or Calculated Fields) and not part of the standard Core Connector template, so they must be explicitly added to the output.

Integration Field Overrides:In Core Connectors, Integration Field Overrides allow you to replace a delivered field's value or add a new field to the output by mapping it to a calculated field. This is the standard method to include custom calculated fields in the integration file. You create the calculated field separately, then use overrides to specify where its value appears in the output structure (e.g., as a new column or replacing an existing field).

Option Analysis:

A . Configure Integration Field Attributes: Incorrect. Integration Field Attributes refine how delivered fields are output (e.g., filtering multi-instance data like phone type), but they don't support adding or mapping calculated fields.

B . Configure Integration Field Overrides: Correct. This configuration maps the calculated field to the output, ensuring its value is included in the exported file.

C . Configure Integration Attributes: Incorrect. Integration Attributes define integration-level settings (e.g., file name, delivery protocol), not field-specific outputs like calculated fields.

D . Configure Integration Maps: Incorrect. Integration Maps transform existing field values (e.g., "Married" to "M"), but they don't add new fields or directly output calculated fields.

Implementation:

Create the calculated field in Workday (e.g., via Create Calculated Field task).

Edit the Core Connector: Worker integration.

Navigate to the Integration Field Overrides section.

Add a new override, selecting the calculated field and specifying its output position (e.g., a new field ID or overriding an existing one).

Test the integration to confirm the calculated field value appears in the output file.

Reference from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide:

Core Connectors & Document Transformation: Section on "Configuring Integration Field Overrides" explains how to include calculated fields in Core Connector outputs.

Integration System Fundamentals: Notes the use of overrides for custom data in predefined integration templates.



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?

  1. Transaction log subscription
  2. Integration Population Eligibility
  3. Date launch parameters
  4. Integration Field Attributes

Answer(s): B

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:The Integration Population Eligibility restriction ("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 the Integration Population Eligibility to 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 action Configure Integration Population Eligibility.

Remove or adjust the "Is Manager" = True condition.

Relaunch the integration and verify Jeff Gordon appears in the output.

Reference 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.



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 Jared Ellis who is assigned to the manager role for the IT Help Desk department. You perform an Edit Position on Jared and update the Job Profile of the position to a new value. Jared Ellis' 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 Jared Ellis does not show up in your output.

What configuration element would have to be modified for the integration to include Jared Ellis in the output?

  1. Integration Population Eligibility
  2. Integration Field Attributes
  3. Date launch parameters
  4. Transaction log subscription

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

The scenario describes a Core Connector: Worker integration configured to output specific fields (Position Title and Business Title) for workers who meet the Integration Population Eligibility criteria (Is Manager = true) and where the Transaction Log service is subscribed to the "Position Edit Event." The integration is launched with specific date parameters, and a test edit is made to Jared Ellis' position, who is a manager. However, despite the edit being completed with an effective date of 05/24/2024 and an entry moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM, Jared does not appear in the output. Let's analyze why and determine the correct configuration element to modify.

In Workday integrations, the Core Connector: Worker uses change detection mechanisms to identify and process updates based on the Transaction Log and date launch parameters. The Transaction Log service captures events such as the "Position Edit Event" and records them with an Effective Date (when the change takes effect) and an Entry Moment (when the change was entered into the system). The integration's date launch parameters define the time window for which changes are retrieved:

As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM ­ This specifies the latest point in time for when changes were entered into Workday.

Effective Date: 05/25/2024 ­ This defines the date for which the changes are effective.

Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM ­ This indicates the starting point for entry moments from the last successful run.

Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024 ­ This indicates the starting point for effective dates from the last successful run.

For an incremental run (like this one, since "Last Successful" parameters are provided), Workday processes changes where the Entry Moment falls between the Last Successful As of Entry Moment (05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM) and the As of Entry Moment (05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM), and where the

Effective Date falls between the Last Successful Effective Date (05/23/2024) and the Effective Date (05/25/2024).

Now, let's evaluate Jared Ellis' edit:

Entry Moment: 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM ­ This falls within the range of 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM to 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM.

Effective Date: 05/24/2024 ­ This falls within the range of 05/23/2024 to 05/25/2024.

At first glance, Jared's edit seems to fit the date parameter window. However, the issue lies in the time component of the date launch parameters. Workday interprets these parameters with precision down to the second. The As of Entry Moment is set to 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM (midnight), which is the very start of May 25, 2024. Jared's Entry Moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM is correctly within the range from 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM to 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM. However, the Transaction Log subscription to "Position Edit Event" relies on the change being fully processed and available in the log by the time the integration runs.

The integration might have run at a point where the effective date window or the subscription logic did not correctly capture the event due to a mismatch in how the Effective Date is evaluated against the Last Successful Effective Date. Specifically, if the integration only processes changes with an Effective Date strictly after the Last Successful Effective Date (05/23/2024) up to the Effective Date (05/25/2024), and the logic excludes changes effective exactly on 05/24/2024 due to a boundary condition or a timing issue in the transaction log, Jared's change might not be picked up.

To resolve this, modifying the Date launch parameters is necessary. Adjusting the As of Entry Moment to a later time (e.g., 05/25/2024 11:59:59 PM) or ensuring the Effective Date range explicitly includes all changes effective on or after 05/23/2024 through 05/25/2024 would ensure Jared's edit is captured. This adjustment aligns the time window to include all relevant transactions logged before the integration run.

Let's evaluate the other options:

A . Integration Population Eligibility: This is set to "Is Manager = true," and Jared is a manager. This filter is working correctly and does not need modification.

B . Integration Field Attributes: These are configured to output Position Title and Business Title, and the edit was to the Job Profile (part of Position Data). The fields are appropriately configured, so this is not the issue.

D . Transaction Log Subscription: The subscription is set to "Position Edit Event," which matches Jared's edit. The subscription type is correct, so no change is needed here.

Thus, the issue stems from the date launch parameters not fully encompassing the timing of Jared's edit in the Transaction Log, making C. Date launch parameters the correct answer.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide Reference

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Core Connector: Worker ­ Section on "Change Detection Using Transaction Log" explains how Transaction Log subscriptions filter events based on date parameters.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Launch Parameters ­ Details the role of "As of Entry Moment" and "Effective Date" in defining the scope of incremental runs.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Incremental Processing ­ Describes how "Last Successful" parameters establish the baseline for detecting changes in subsequent runs.



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 Jared Ellis who is assigned to the manager role for the IT Help Desk department. You use the Change Business Title related action on Jared and update the Business Title of the position to a new value. Jared Ellis' worker history shows the Title Change 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 Jared Ellis does not show up in your output.
What configuration element would have to be modified for the integration to include Jared Ellis in the output?

  1. Transaction log subscription
  2. Date launch parameters
  3. Integration Field Attributes
  4. Integration Population Eligibility

Answer(s): A

Explanation:

The scenario involves a Core Connector: Worker integration configured to output Position Title and Business Title fields for workers who meet the Integration Population Eligibility criteria (Is Manager = true), with the Transaction Log service subscribed to the "Position Edit Event." The integration is launched with specific date parameters, and a test is performed by updating Jared Ellis' Business Title using the "Change Business Title" related action. Jared is a manager, and the change is logged with an effective date of 05/24/2024 and an entry moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM. Despite this, Jared does not appear in the output. Let's determine why and identify the configuration element that needs modification.

In Workday, the Core Connector: Worker integration uses the Transaction Log service to detect changes based on subscribed transaction types. The subscribed transaction type in this case is "Position Edit Event," which is triggered when a position is edited via the "Edit Position" business process. However, the test scenario involves a "Change Business Title" related action, which is a distinct business process in Workday. This action updates the Business Title field but does not necessarily trigger a "Position Edit Event." Instead, it generates a different event type, such as a "Title Change Event" (as noted in Jared's worker history), depending on how the system logs the action.

The date launch parameters provided are:

As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM ­ The latest point for entry moments.

Effective Date: 05/25/2024 ­ The latest effective date for changes.

Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM ­ The starting point for entry moments from the last run.

Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024 ­ The starting point for effective dates from the last run.

Jared's change has:

Entry Moment: 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM ­ Falls between 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM and 05/25/2024
12:00:00 AM.

Effective Date: 05/24/2024 ­ Falls between 05/23/2024 and 05/25/2024.

The date parameters correctly cover the time window of Jared's change, meaning the issue is not with the date range but with the event detection logic. The Transaction Log subscription determines which events are processed by the integration. Since the subscription is set to "Position Edit Event"

and the change was made via "Change Business Title" (logged as a "Title Change Event"), the integration does not recognize this event because it is not subscribed to the appropriate transaction type.

To include Jared Ellis in the output, the Transaction Log subscription must be modified to include the event type associated with the "Change Business Title" action, such as "Title Change Event" or a broader category like "Position Related Event" that encompasses both position edits and title changes. This ensures the integration captures the specific update made to Jared's Business Title.

Let's evaluate the other options:

B . Date launch parameters: The parameters already include Jared's entry moment and effective date within the specified ranges (05/23/2024 to 05/25/2024). Adjusting these would not address the mismatch between the subscribed event type and the actual event triggered.

C . Integration Field Attributes: These are set to output Position Title and Business Title, and the change to Business Title is within scope. The field configuration is correct and does not need modification.

D . Integration Population Eligibility: This is set to "Is Manager = true," and Jared is a manager. This filter is functioning as intended and is not the issue.

The root cause is the Transaction Log subscription not aligning with the event type generated by the "Change Business Title" action, making A. Transaction log subscription the correct answer.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide Reference

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Core Connector: Worker ­ Section on "Transaction Log Configuration" explains how subscribing to specific transaction types filters the events processed by the integration.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Change Detection ­ Details how different business processes (e.g., Edit Position vs. Change Business Title) generate distinct event types in the Transaction Log.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Event Subscription ­ Notes the importance of aligning subscription types with the specific business actions being tested or monitored.



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 Jared Ellis who is assigned to the manager role for the IT Help Desk department. You perform an Edit Position on Jared and update their business title to a new value. Jared Ellis' worker history shows the Edit Position Event as being successfully completed with an effective date of 05/27/2024 and an Entry Moment of 05/24/2024
07:58:53 AM however Jared Ellis does not show up in your output.
What configuration element would have to be modified for the integration to include Jared Ellis in the output?

  1. Integration Population Eligibility
  2. Date launch parameters
  3. Integration Field Attributes
  4. Transaction log subscription

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The scenario describes a Core Connector: Worker integration configured to output Position Title and

Business Title fields for workers who meet the Integration Population Eligibility criteria (Is Manager = true), with the Transaction Log service subscribed to the "Position Edit Event." The integration is launched with specific date parameters, and a test is performed by updating Jared Ellis' Business Title via an "Edit Position" action. Jared is a manager, and the change is logged with an effective date of 05/27/2024 and an entry moment of 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM. Despite this, Jared does not appear in the output. Let's analyze why and determine the configuration element that needs modification.

In Workday, the Core Connector: Worker integration relies on the Transaction Log service to detect changes based on subscribed transaction types and processes them according to the date launch parameters. The integration is configured as an incremental run (since "Last Successful" parameters are provided), meaning it captures changes that occurred since the last successful run, within the specified date ranges. The date launch parameters are:

As of Entry Moment: 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM ­ The latest point for when changes were entered into the system.

Effective Date: 05/25/2024 ­ The latest effective date for changes to be considered.

Last Successful As of Entry Moment: 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM ­ The starting point for entry moments from the last run.

Last Successful Effective Date: 05/23/2024 ­ The starting point for effective dates from the last run.

For an incremental run, Workday processes changes where:

The Entry Moment falls between the Last Successful As of Entry Moment (05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM) and the As of Entry Moment (05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM), and

The Effective Date falls between the Last Successful Effective Date (05/23/2024) and the Effective Date (05/25/2024).

Now, let's evaluate Jared Ellis' change:

Entry Moment: 05/24/2024 07:58:53 AM ­ This falls within the range of 05/23/2024 12:00:00 AM to 05/25/2024 12:00:00 AM, so the entry timing is captured correctly.

Effective Date: 05/27/2024 ­ This is after the Effective Date of 05/25/2024 specified in the launch parameters.

The issue arises with the Effective Date. The integration only processes changes with an effective date between 05/23/2024 (Last Successful Effective Date) and 05/25/2024 (Effective Date). Jared's change, with an effective date of 05/27/2024, falls outside this range. In Workday, the effective date determines when a change takes effect, and incremental integrations rely on this date to filter relevant transactions. Even though the entry moment (when the change was entered) is within the specified window, the effective date being in the future (relative to the integration's Effective Date of

05/25/2024) excludes Jared from the output.

To include Jared Ellis in the output, the Date launch parameters must be modified. Specifically, the Effective Date needs to be adjusted to a date that includes 05/27/2024 (e.g., 05/27/2024 or later). This ensures the integration captures changes effective up to or beyond Jared's edit. Alternatively, if the intent is to process future-dated changes entered within the current window, the integration could be adjusted to consider the entry moment as the primary filter, though this would typically require a different configuration approach (e.g., full file mode or a custom report, not standard incremental behavior).

Let's evaluate the other options:

A . Integration Population Eligibility: Set to "Is Manager = true," and Jared is a manager. This filter is correct and does not need modification.

C . Integration Field Attributes: Configured to output Position Title and Business Title, and the change to Business Title is within scope. The field configuration is appropriate.

D . Transaction log subscription: Subscribed to "Position Edit Event," which matches the "Edit Position" action performed on Jared. The subscription type is correct.

The mismatch between the integration's Effective Date (05/25/2024) and Jared's change effective date (05/27/2024) is the reason for exclusion, making B. Date launch parameters the correct answer.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide Reference

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Core Connector: Worker ­ Section on "Change Detection" explains how effective dates and entry moments govern incremental processing.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Launch Parameters ­ Details the roles of "Effective Date" and "As of Entry Moment" in filtering changes, emphasizing that incremental runs focus on the effective date range.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Incremental Processing ­ Describes how future-dated changes (effective dates beyond the launch parameter) are excluded unless the parameters are adjusted accordingly.



Viewing Page 2 of 11



Share your comments for Workday Workday-Pro-Integrations exam with other users:

Biswa 11/20/2023 9:28:00 AM

understand sql col.
Anonymous


Saint Pierre 10/24/2023 6:21:00 AM

i would give 5 stars to this website as i studied for az-800 exam from here. it has all the relevant material available for preparation. i got 890/1000 on the test.
Anonymous


Rose 7/24/2023 2:16:00 PM

this is nice.
Anonymous


anon 10/15/2023 12:21:00 PM

q55- the ridac workflow can be modified using flow designer, correct answer is d not a
UNITED STATES


NanoTek3 6/13/2022 10:44:00 PM

by far this is the most accurate exam dumps i have ever purchased. all questions are in the exam. i saw almost 90% of the questions word by word.
UNITED STATES


eriy 11/9/2023 5:12:00 AM

i cleared the az-104 exam by scoring 930/1000 on the exam. it was all possible due to this platform as it provides premium quality service. thank you!
UNITED STATES


Muhammad Rawish Siddiqui 12/8/2023 8:12:00 PM

question # 232: accessibility, privacy, and innovation are not data quality dimensions.
SAUDI ARABIA


Venkat 12/27/2023 9:04:00 AM

looks wrong answer for 443 question, please check and update
Anonymous


Varun 10/29/2023 9:11:00 PM

great question
Anonymous


Doc 10/29/2023 9:36:00 PM

question: a user wants to start a recruiting posting job posting. what must occur before the posting process can begin? 3 ans: comment- option e is incorrect reason: as part of enablement steps, sap recommends that to be able to post jobs to a job board, a user need to have the correct permission and secondly, be associated with one posting profile at minimum
UNITED KINGDOM


It‘s not A 9/17/2023 5:31:00 PM

answer to question 72 is d [sys_user_role]
Anonymous


indira m 8/14/2023 12:15:00 PM

please provide the pdf
UNITED STATES


ribrahim 8/1/2023 6:05:00 AM

hey guys, just to let you all know that i cleared my 312-38 today within 1 hr with 100 questions and passed. thank you so much brain-dumps.net all the questions that ive studied in this dump came out exactly the same word for word "verbatim". you rock brain-dumps.net!!! section name total score gained score network perimeter protection 16 11 incident response 10 8 enterprise virtual, cloud, and wireless network protection 12 8 application and data protection 13 10 network défense management 10 9 endpoint protection 15 12 incident d
SINGAPORE


Andrew 8/23/2023 6:02:00 PM

very helpful
Anonymous


latha 9/7/2023 8:14:00 AM

useful questions
GERMANY


ibrahim 11/9/2023 7:57:00 AM

page :20 https://exam-dumps.com/snowflake/free-cof-c02-braindumps.html?p=20#collapse_453 q 74: true or false: pipes can be suspended and resumed. true. desc.: pausing or resuming pipes in addition to the pipe owner, a role that has the following minimum permissions can pause or resume the pipe https://docs.snowflake.com/en/user-guide/data-load-snowpipe-intro
FINLAND


Franklin Allagoa 7/5/2023 5:16:00 AM

i want hcia exam dumps
Anonymous


SSA 12/24/2023 1:18:00 PM

good training
Anonymous


BK 8/11/2023 12:23:00 PM

very useful
INDIA


Deepika Narayanan 7/13/2023 11:05:00 PM

yes need this exam dumps
Anonymous


Blessious Phiri 8/15/2023 3:31:00 PM

these questions are a great eye opener
Anonymous


Jagdesh 9/8/2023 8:17:00 AM

thank you for providing these questions and answers. they helped me pass my exam. you guys are great.
CANADA


TS 7/18/2023 3:32:00 PM

good knowledge
Anonymous


Asad Khan 11/1/2023 2:44:00 AM

answer 10 should be a because only a new project will be created & the organization is the same.
Anonymous


Raj 9/12/2023 3:49:00 PM

can you please upload the dump again
UNITED STATES


Christian Klein 6/23/2023 1:32:00 PM

is it legit questions from sap certifications ?
UNITED STATES


anonymous 1/12/2024 3:34:00 PM

question 16 should be b (changing the connector settings on the monitor) pc and monitor were powered on. the lights on the pc are on indicating power. the monitor is showing an error text indicating that it is receiving power too. this is a clear sign of having the wrong input selected on the monitor. thus, the "connector setting" needs to be switched from hdmi to display port on the monitor so it receives the signal from the pc, or the other way around (display port to hdmi).
UNITED STATES


NSPK 1/18/2024 10:26:00 AM

q 10. ans is d (in the target org: open deployment settings, click edit next to the source org. select allow inbound changes and save
Anonymous


mohamed abdo 9/1/2023 4:59:00 AM

very useful
Anonymous


Tom 3/18/2022 8:00:00 PM

i purchased this exam dumps from another website with way more questions but they were all invalid and outdate. this exam dumps was right to the point and all from recent exam. it was a hard pass.
UNITED KINGDOM


Edrick GOP 10/24/2023 6:00:00 AM

it was a good experience and i got 90% in the 200-901 exam.
Anonymous


anonymous 8/10/2023 2:28:00 AM

hi please upload this
Anonymous


Bakir 7/6/2023 7:24:00 AM

please upload it
UNITED KINGDOM


Aman 6/18/2023 1:27:00 PM

really need this dump. can you please help.
UNITED KINGDOM