Workday Workday-Pro-Integrations Dumps Questions Answers

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 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

HR Skills

NON-HR Skills

Issues:

is misused here. It outputs the result of the expression (e.g., "true" or "false" for a comparison), not the conditional text. The 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.

is malformed (self-closing without a test attribute) and misplaced.

Verdict: Incorrect syntax and logic.

Option B:

xml

HR Skills

NON-HR Skills

Issues:

Similar to A, outputs the boolean result of contains() ("true" or "false"), not the conditional text "HR Skills" or "NON-HR Skills."

The elements are inside invalid tags (self-closing, no test), rendering them ineffective.

While contains() is correct for substring checking, the structure fails to meet the requirement.

Verdict: Incorrect structure despite using contains().

Option C:

xml

HR Skills

NON-HR Skills

Analysis:

Uses correctly with test attributes, satisfying the "series of 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

HR Skills

NON-HR Skills

Analysis:

Correctly uses 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).

outputs the exact strings "HR Skills" or "NON-HR Skills" as required.

Note: The closing tag is a typo in the option (should be ), 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

HR Skills

NON-HR Skills

Example Input: Senior HR Analyst → Output: HR Skills

Example Input: IT Specialist → Output: NON-HR Skills

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: "Configure Integration System - TRANSFORMATION" section, detailing 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 ," and Section 11.2, "String Functions" (contains()).

Workday Community: Examples of substring-based conditionals in XSLT for report transformations.

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 References

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.

In Workday integrations, XSLT is used to transform XML data, such as the output from a web service-enabled report or EIB, into a desired format for third-party systems. In this scenario, you need to write XSLT to process wd:Education_Group elements within a template matching wd:Report_Entry, using an element to iterate only over wd:Education_Group elements where the wd:Degree is "MBA." The correct XPath syntax for the select attribute is critical to ensure accurate filtering.

Here’s why option A is correct:

XPath Syntax Explanation: In XPath, square brackets [ ] are used to specify predicates or conditions to filter elements. The condition wd:Degree='MBA' checks if the wd:Degree child element has the value "MBA." When applied to wd:Education_Group, the expression wd:Education_Group[wd:Degree='MBA'] selects only those wd:Education_Group elements that contain a wd:Degree child element with the value "MBA."

Context in XSLT: Within an element in a template matching wd:Report_Entry, the select attribute uses XPath to specify which nodes to process. This syntax ensures that the template only applies to wd:Education_Group elements where the degree is "MBA," aligning with the requirement to conditionally process only those specific education groups.

XML Structure Alignment: Based on the provided XML snippet, wd:Education_Group contains wd:Education and wd:Degree child elements (e.g., MBA). The XPath wd:Education_Group[wd:Degree='MBA'] correctly navigates to wd:Education_Group and filters based on the wd:Degree value, matching the structure and requirement.

Why not the other options?

B. wd:Education_Group/wd:Degree='MBA': This is not a valid XPath expression for a predicate. It attempts to navigate to wd:Degree as a child but does not use square brackets [ ] to create a filtering condition. This would be interpreted as selecting wd:Degree elements under wd:Education_Group, but it wouldn’t filter based on the value "MBA" correctly within an context.

C. wd:Report_Entry/wd:Education_Group/wd:Degree='MBA' 1:Degree='MBA': This is syntactically incorrect and unclear. It includes a malformed condition (1:Degree='MBA') and does not use proper XPath predicate syntax. It fails to filter wd:Education_Group elements based on wd:Degree='MBA' and is not valid for use in select.

D. wd:Report_Entry/wd:Education_Group[wd:Degree='MBA' 1:Degree='MBA']: This is also syntactically incorrect due to the inclusion of 1:Degree='MBA' within the predicate. The 1: prefix is not valid XPath syntax and introduces an error. The correct predicate should only be wd:Degree='MBA' to filter the wd:Education_Group elements.

To implement this in XSLT:

Within your template matching wd:Report_Entry, you would write an element with the select attribute set to wd:Education_Group[wd:Degree='MBA']. This ensures that only wd:Education_Group elements with a wd:Degree value of "MBA" are processed by the corresponding templates, effectively filtering out other degrees (e.g., B.S., B.A.) in the transformation.

This approach ensures the XSLT transformation aligns with Workday’s XML structure and integration requirements for processing education data in a report output.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: Section on "XSLT Transformations for Workday Integrations" – Details the use of XPath in XSLT for filtering XML elements, including predicates for conditional processing based on child element values.

Workday EIB and Web Services Guide: Chapter on "XML and XSLT for Report Data" – Explains the structure of Workday XML (e.g., wd:Education_Group, wd:Degree) and how to use XPath to navigate and filter data.

Workday Reporting and Analytics Guide: Section on "Web Service-Enabled Reports" – Covers integrating report outputs with XSLT for transformations, including examples of filtering elements based on specific values like degree types.