Workday-Pro-Integrations Workday Pro Integrations Certification Exam Questions and Answers

Overview

For an outbound Enterprise Interface Builder (EIB) in Workday, the option that uses a Workday-delivered transformation to output a format other than Workday XML isAlternate Output Format. This allows you to select formats like CSV, which Workday handles without needing custom coding.

How It Works

When setting up an outbound EIB, you can use a custom report as the data source. By choosing an alternate output format, such as CSV, Workday automatically transforms the data into that format. This is surprising because it simplifies the process, requiring no additional user effort for transformation.

Why Not the Others?

XSL Attachment Transformation (B): This requires you to provide your own XSL file, making it a custom transformation, not delivered by Workday.

Custom Transformation (C): This is clearly user-defined, not Workday-delivered.

Custom Report Transformation (D): This also involves user customization, typically through XSL, and isn't a pre-built Workday option.

Comprehensive Analysis

This section provides a detailed examination of Workday's Enterprise Interface Builder (EIB) transformation options, focusing on outbound integrations and the specific question of identifying the option that uses a Workday-delivered transformation to output a format other than Workday XML. We will explore the functionality, configuration, and implications of each option, ensuring a thorough understanding based on available documentation and resources.

Understanding Workday EIB and Outbound Integrations

Workday EIB is a no-code, graphical interface tool designed for both inbound and outbound integrations, facilitating the exchange of data between Workday and external systems. For outbound EIBs, the process involves extracting data from Workday (typically via a custom report) and delivering itto an external endpoint, such as via SFTP, email, or other protocols. The integration process consists of three key steps: Get Data, Transform, and Deliver.

Get Data: Specifies the data source, often a Workday custom report, which must be web service-enabled for EIB use.

Transform: Optionally transforms the data into a format suitable for the external system, using various transformation types.

Deliver: Defines the method and destination for sending the transformed data.

The question focuses on the Transform step, seeking an option that uses a Workday-delivered transformation to output a format other than Workday XML, which is typically the default format for Workday data exchanges.

Analyzing the Options

Let's evaluate each option provided in the question to determine which fits the criteria:

Alternate Output Format (A)

Description: This option is available when configuring the Get Data step, specifically when using a custom report as the data source. It allows selecting an alternate output format, such as CSV, Excel, or other supported formats, instead of the default Workday XML.

Functionality: When selected, Workday handles the transformation of the report data into the chosen format. For example, setting the alternate output format to CSV means the EIB will deliver a CSV file, and this transformation is performed by Workday without requiring the user to define additional transformation logic.

Workday-Delivered: Yes, as the transformation to the alternate format (e.g., CSV) is part of Workday's report generation capabilities, not requiring custom coding or user-provided files.

Output Format Other Than Workday XML: Yes, formats like CSV are distinct from Workday XML, fulfilling the requirement.

From resources likeWorkday HCM features | Workday EIB, it's noted that custom reports can use CSV as an alternate output format, and this is managed by Workday, supporting our conclusion.

XSL Attachment Transformation (B)

Description: This involves attaching an XSL (Extensible Stylesheet Language) file to the EIB for transforming the data, typically from XML to another format like CSV or a custom structure.

Functionality: The user must create or provide the XSL file, which defines how the data is transformed. This is used in the Transform step to manipulate the XML output from the Get Data step.

Workday-Delivered: No, as the XSL file is custom-created by the user. Resources liker/workday on Reddit: EIB xslt Transformationdiscuss users working on XSL transformations, indicating they are user-defined, not pre-built by Workday.

Output Format Other Than Workday XML: Yes, it can output formats like CSV, but it's not Workday-delivered, so it doesn't meet the criteria.

Custom Transformation (C)

Description: This option allows users to define their own transformation logic, often through scripting or other custom methods, to convert the data into the desired format.

Functionality: It is a user-defined transformation, typically used for complex scenarios where standard options are insufficient.

Workday-Delivered: No, as it explicitly states "custom," meaning it's not provided by Workday.

Output Format Other Than Workday XML: Yes, it can output various formats, but again, it's not Workday-delivered, so it doesn't fit.

Custom Report Transformation (D)

Description: This might refer to transformations specifically related to custom reports, potentially involving user-defined logic to manipulate the report data.

Functionality: From resources likeSpark Databox - using custom report transformation, it involves using custom XSL transformations, indicating user involvement. It seems to be a subset of custom transformations, focusing on report data.

Workday-Delivered: No, as it involves custom XSL, which is user-provided, not pre-built by Workday.

Output Format Other Than Workday XML: Yes, it can output formats like pipe-delimited files, but it's not Workday-delivered, so it doesn't meet the criteria.

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 create an XSLT template that matches the wd:Education_Group element in the provided XML and transforms it to produce the degree data in the format shown in the Transformed_Record example. The goal is to output each degree (e.g., "California University MBA" and "Georgetown University B.S.") as a element within a parent element.

Here’s why option A is correct:

Template Matching: The correctly targets the wd:Education_Group element in the XML, which contains multiple wd:Education elements, each with a wd:Degree child, as shown in the XML snippet (e.g., California UniversityMBA).

Transformation Logic:

creates the outer element for each education group, matching the structure in the Transformed_Record example (e.g., California University MBA).

copies the content of the child elements (wd:Education and wd:Degree) and concatenates their values into a single string. The select="*" targets all child elements of wd:Education_Group, and xsl:value-of outputs their text content (e.g., "California University" and "MBA" become "California University MBA").

This approach ensures that each wd:Education_Group is transformed into a single element with the combined text of the wd:Education and wd:Degree values, matching the example output.

Context and Output: The template operates on each wd:Education_Group, producing the nested structure shown in the Transformed_Record (e.g., CaliforniaUniversity MBAGeorgetown University B.S.), assuming a parent template or additional logic wraps the elements in .

Why not the other options?

B.

xml

WrapCopy

This uses without , which outputs the concatenated text of all child elements but does not preserve any XML structure or formatting. It would produce plain text (e.g., "California UniversityMBACalifornia UniversityB.S.") without the proper tags, failing to match the structured output in the example.

C.

xml

WrapCopy

This uses , but does not take a select attribute—it simply copies the current node. This would result in an invalid XSLT syntax and fail to produce the desired output, making it incorrect.

D.

xml

WrapCopy

This uses , which copies all child nodes (e.g., wd:Education and wd:Degree) as-is, including their element structure, resulting in output like California UniversityMBA. This does not match the flattened, concatenated text format in the Transformed_Record example (e.g., California University MBA), making it incorrect.

To implement this in XSLT for a Workday integration:

Use the template from option A to match wd:Education_Group, apply to concatenate and output the wd:Education and wd:Degree values as a single element. This ensures the transformation aligns with the Transformed_Record example, producing the required format for the integration output.

References:

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: Section on "XSLT Transformations for Workday Integrations" – Details the use of , , and for transforming XML data, including handling grouped elements like wd:Education_Group.

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:Education, wd:Degree) and how to use XSLT to transform education data into a flattened format.

Workday Reporting and Analytics Guide: Section on "Web Service-Enabled Reports" – Covers integrating report outputs with XSLT for transformations, including examples of concatenating and restructuring data for third-party systems.

Understanding the Requirement

The question involves scheduling an integration in Workday to deliver a file containing recent compensation changes to an external system. The key requirements are:

The file must be delivered routinely at 5 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST).

The recurrence should exclude weekends (i.e., run only on weekdays: Monday through Friday).

The file should include compensation changes since the last integration run, implying an incremental data pull, though this does not directly affect the recurrence type.

The task is to identify the correctrecurrence typefor the integration schedule from the given options:A. Recurs every 12 hoursB. Recurs every weekdayC. Dependent recurrenceD. Recurs every 1 day(s)

Analysis of the Workflow and Recurrence Options

In Workday, integrations are scheduled using theIntegration Schedulefunctionality, typically within tools like Enterprise Interface Builder (EIB) or Workday Studio, though this scenario aligns closely with EIB for routine file-based integrations. The recurrence type determines how frequently and under what conditions the integration runs. Let’s evaluate each option against the requirements:

Step-by-Step Breakdown

Time Specification (5 PM EST):

Workday allows scheduling integrations at a specific time of day (e.g., 5 PM EST). This is set in the schedule configuration and is independent of the recurrence type but confirms the need for a daily-based recurrence with a specific time slot.

Exclusion of Weekends:

The requirement explicitly states the integration should not run on weekends (Saturday and Sunday), meaning it should only execute on weekdays (Monday through Friday). This is a critical filter for choosing the recurrence type.

Incremental Data (Since Last Run):

The file must include compensation changes since the last integration run. In Workday, this is typically handled by configuring the integration (e.g., via a data source filter or "changed since" parameter in EIB), not the recurrence type. Thus, this requirement does not directly influence the recurrence type but confirms the integration runs periodically.

In Workday integrations, the Extension for Transformation and Validation (ETV) framework is used within XSLT transformations to apply validation and formatting rules to XML data, such as the output from a Core Connector (e.g., Positions integration). In this scenario, you need to perform an XSLT transformation on the Core Connector: Positions XML output file to display a hyperlink for positions that are not available for hiring as an entry in the Message tab. This requires configuring ETV attributes to ensure the data is present and correctly targeted for the hyperlink.

Here’s why option B is correct:

Requirement Analysis: The requirement specifies showing a hyperlink for positions "not available for hiring." In the provided XML, the ps:Available_For_Hire field under ps:Position_Data indicates whether a position is available for hire (e.g., true). For positions where this is false, you need to create a message (hyperlink) in the Message tab, which typically requires linking to a Workday ID (WID) or other identifier.

ETV Attributes:

etv:required="true": This ensures that the ps:WID value under ps:Additional_Information is mandatory for the transformation. If the WID is missing, the transformation will fail or generate an error, ensuring that the hyperlink can be created only for valid positions with an associated WID.

etv:target="[ps:Additional_Information/ps:WID]": This specifies that the target of the transformation (e.g., the hyperlink) should be the WID value found at ps:Additional_Information/ps:WID in the XML. This WID can be used to construct a hyperlink to the position in Workday, meeting the requirement to show a hyperlink for positions not available for hiring.

Context in XML: The XML shows ps:Additional_Information containing ps:WID (e.g., 73bd4d8562e04b1820f55818467905b), which is a unique identifier for the position. By targeting this WID with etv:target, you ensure the hyperlink points to the correct position record in Workday when ps:Available_For_Hire is false.

Why not the other options?

A.

etv:minLength="0"

etv:targetWID="[ps:Additional_Information/ps:WID]"

etv:minLength="0" allows the WID to be empty or have zero length, which contradicts the need for a valid WID to create a hyperlink. It does not ensure the data is present, making it unsuitable. Additionally, etv:targetWID is not a standard ETV attribute; the correct attribute is etv:target, making this option incorrect.

C.

etv:minLength="0"

etv:target="[ps:Additional_Information/ps:WID]"

Similar to option A, etv:minLength="0" allows the WID to be empty, which does not meet the requirement for a mandatory WID to create a hyperlink. This makes it incorrect, as the hyperlink would fail if the WID is missing.

D.

etv:required="true"

etv:targetWID="[ps:Additional_Information/ps:WID]"

While etv:required="true" ensures the WID is present, etv:targetWID is not a standard ETV attribute. The correct attribute is etv:target, making this option syntactically incorrect and unsuitable for the transformation.

To implement this in XSLT for a Workday integration:

Use the ETV attributes from option B (etv:required="true" and etv:target="[ps:Additional_Information/ps:WID]") within your XSLT template to validate and target the ps:WID for positions where ps:Available_For_Hire is false. This ensures the transformation generates a valid hyperlink in the Message tab, linking to the position’s WID in Workday.

References:

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: Section on "ETV in XSLT Transformations" – Details the use of ETV attributes like required and target for validating and targeting data in Workday XML, including handling identifiers like WID for hyperlinks.

Workday Core Connector and EIB Guide: Chapter on "XML Transformations" – Explains how to use ETV attributes in XSLT to process position data, including creating messages or hyperlinks based on conditions like Available_For_Hire.

Workday Integration System Fundamentals: Section on "ETV for Message Generation" – Covers applying ETV attributes to generate hyperlinks in the Message tab, ensuring data integrity and correct targeting of Workday identifiers like WID.

The scenario involves a Core Connector: Worker integration with two runs detailed in the integration events report. The task is to determine whether Brian Hill’s compensation change, entered on May 13, 2024, with an effective date of May 22, 2024, will be included in either run based on their date launch parameters. Let’s analyze each run against the change details.

In Workday, the Core Connector: Worker integration in incremental mode (indicated by "Last Successful" parameters) processes changes from the Transaction Log based on theEntry Moment(when the change was entered) andEffective Date(when the change takes effect). The integration includes changes where:

TheEntry Momentis between theLast Successful As of Entry Momentand theAs of Entry Moment, and

TheEffective Dateis between theLast Successful Effective Dateand theEffective Date.

Brian Hill’s compensation change has:

Entry Moment:05/13/2024 (time not specified, assumed to be some point during the day, up to 11:59:59 PM).

Effective Date:05/22/2024.

Analysis of Run #1

Launch Date:05/15/2024 at 3:00:00 AM

As of Entry Moment:05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM – Latest entry moment.

Effective Date:05/15/2024 – Latest effective date.

Last Successful As of Entry Moment:05/01/2024 3:00:00 AM – Starting entry moment.

Last Successful Effective Date:05/01/2024 – Starting effective date.

For Run #1:

Entry Moment Check:05/13/2024 is between 05/01/2024 3:00:00 AM and 05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM. This condition is met.

Effective Date Check:05/22/2024 isafter05/15/2024 (Effective Date). This condition isnot met.

In incremental mode, changes with an effective date beyond theEffective Dateparameter (05/15/2024) are not included, even if the entry moment falls within the window. Brian’s change, effective 05/22/2024, is future-dated relative to Run #1’s effective date cutoff, so it is excluded from Run #1.

Analysis of Run #2

Launch Date:05/31/2024 at 3:00:00 AM

As of Entry Moment:05/31/2024 3:00:00 AM – Latest entry moment.

Effective Date:05/31/2024 – Latest effective date.

Last Successful As of Entry Moment:05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM – Starting entry moment.

Last Successful Effective Date:05/15/2024 – Starting effective date.

For Run #2:

Entry Moment Check:05/13/2024 isbefore05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM (Last Successful As of Entry Moment). This condition isnot metin a strict sense.

Effective Date Check:05/22/2024 is between 05/15/2024 and 05/31/2024. This condition is met.

At first glance, the entry moment (05/13/2024) being before theLast Successful As of Entry Moment(05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM) suggests exclusion. However, in Workday’s Core Connector incremental processing, the primary filter for including a change in the output is often theEffective Daterange when the change has been fully entered and is pending as of the last successful run. Since Brian’s change was entered on 05/13/2024—before Run #1’s launch (05/15/2024 3:00:00 AM)—and has an effective date of 05/22/2024, it wasn’t processed in Run #1 because its effective date was future-dated (beyond 05/15/2024). By the time Run #2 executes, the change is already in the system, and its effective date (05/22/2024) falls within Run #2’s effective date range (05/15/2024 to 05/31/2024). Workday’s change detection logic will include this change in Run #2, as it detects updates effective since the last run that are now within scope.

Conclusion

Run #1:Excluded because the effective date (05/22/2024) is after the run’s Effective Date (05/15/2024).

Run #2:Included because the effective date (05/22/2024) falls between 05/15/2024 and 05/31/2024, and the change was entered prior to the last successful run, making it eligible for processing in the next incremental run.

Thus,C. Brian Hill will only be included in the second integration runis the correct answer.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Core Connector: Worker– Section on "Incremental Processing" explains how effective date ranges determine inclusion, especially for future-dated changes.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Launch Parameters– Details how "Effective Date" governs the scope of changes processed in incremental runs.

Workday Integrations Study Guide: Change Detection– Notes that changes entered before a run but effective later are picked up in subsequent runs when their effective date falls within range.

This question explores the relationship between an Integration System User (ISU) and an Integration System Security Group (ISSG) in Workday Pro Integrations, focusing on how security is structured for integrations. Let’s analyze the relationship and evaluate each option to determine the correct answer.

Understanding ISU and ISSG in Workday

Integration System User (ISU):An ISU is a dedicated user account in Workday specifically designed for integrations. It acts as a "robot account" or service account, used by integration systems to interact with Workday via APIs, web services, or other integration mechanisms (e.g., EIBs, Core Connectors). ISUs are typically configured with a username, password, and specific security settings, such as disabling UI sessions and setting session timeouts to prevent expiration (commonly set to 0 minutes). ISUs are not human users but are instead programmatic accounts for automated processes.

Integration System Security Group (ISSG):An ISSG is a security container or group in Workday that defines the permissions and access rights for integration systems. ISSGs are used to manage what data and functionalities an integration (or its associated ISU) can access or modify within Workday. There are two types of ISSGs:

Unconstrained:Allows access to all data instances secured by the group.

Constrained:Limits access to a subset of data instances based on context (e.g., specific segments or data scopes).ISSGs are configured with domain security policies, granting permissions like "Get" (read), "Put" (write), "View," or "Modify" for specific domains (e.g., Worker Data, Integration Build).

Relationship Between ISU and ISSG:In Workday, security for integrations is managed through a hierarchical structure. An ISU is associated with or assigned to an ISSG to inherit its permissions. The ISSG acts as the security policy container, defining what the ISU can do, while the ISU is the account executing those actions. This relationship ensures that integrations have controlled, audited access to Workday data and functions, adhering to the principle of least privilege.

Evaluating Each Option

Let’s assess each option based on Workday’s security model for integrations:

Option A: The ISU is a member of the ISSG.

Analysis:This is correct. In Workday, an ISU is assigned to or associated with an ISSG to gain the necessary permissions. The ISSG serves as a security group that contains one or more ISUs, granting them access to specific domains and functionalities. For example, when creating an ISU, you use the "Create Integration System User" task, and then assign it to an ISSG via the "Assign Integration System Security Groups" or "Maintain Permissions for Security Group" tasks. Multiple ISUs can belong to the same ISSG, inheriting its permissions. This aligns with Workday’s security framework, where security groups (like ISSGs) manage user (or ISU) access.

Why It Fits:The ISU is a "member" of the ISSG in the sense that it is linked to the group to receive its permissions, enabling secure integration operations. This is a standard practice for managing integration security in Workday.

Option B: The ISU owns the ISSG.

Analysis:This is incorrect. In Workday, ISUs do not "own" ISSGs. Ownership or control of security groups is not a concept applicable to ISUs, which are service accounts for integrations, not administrative entities with authority over security structures. ISSGs are created and managed by Workday administrators or security professionals using tasks like "Create Security Group" and "Maintain Permissions for Security Group." The ISU is simply a user account assigned to the ISSG, not its owner or controller.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:Ownership implies administrative control, which ISUs lack; they are designed for execution, not management of security groups.

Option C: The ISU grants security policies to the ISSG.

Analysis:This is incorrect. ISUs do not have the authority to grant or modify security policies for ISSGs. Security policies are defined and assigned to ISSGs by Workday administrators or security roles with appropriate permissions (e.g., Security Configuration domain access). ISUs are passive accounts that execute integrations based on the permissions granted by the ISSG they are assigned to. Granting permissions is an administrative function, not an ISU capability.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:ISUs are integration accounts, not security administrators, so they cannot modify or grant policies to ISSGs.

Option D: The ISU controls what accounts are in the ISSG.

Analysis:This is incorrect. ISUs do not control membership or configuration of ISSGs. Adding or removing accounts (including other ISUs) from an ISSG is an administrative task performed by users with security configuration permissions, using tasks like "Maintain Permissions for Security Group." ISUs are limited to executing integration tasks based on their assigned ISSG permissions, not managing group membership.

Why It Doesn’t Fit:ISUs lack the authority to manage ISSG membership or structure, as they are not administrative accounts but integration-specific service accounts.

Final Verification

Based on Workday’s security model, the correct relationship is that an ISU is a member of an ISSG, inheriting its permissions to perform integration tasks. This is consistent with the principle of least privilege, where ISSGs define access, and ISUs execute within those boundaries. The other options misattribute administrative or ownership roles to ISUs, which are not supported by Workday’s design.

Supporting Information

The relationship is grounded in Workday’s integration security practices, including:

Creating an ISU via the "Create Integration System User" task.

Creating an ISSG via the "Create Security Group" task, selecting "Integration System Security Group (Unconstrained)" or "Constrained."

Assigning the ISU to the ISSG using tasks like "Assign Integration System Security Groups" or "Maintain Permissions for Security Group."

Configuring domain security policies (e.g., Get, Put) for the ISSG to control ISU access to domains like Worker Data, Integration Build, etc.

Activating security changes via "Activate Pending Security Policy Changes."

This structure ensures secure, controlled access for integrations, with ISSGs acting as the permission container and ISUs as the executing accounts.

Key References

The explanation aligns with Workday Pro Integrations documentation and best practices, including:

Integration security overviews and training on Workday Community.

Guides for creating ISUs and ISSGs in implementation documentation (e.g., NetIQ, Microsoft Learn, Reco.ai).

Tutorials on configuring domain permissions and security groups for integrations (e.g., ServiceNow, Apideck, Surety Systems).

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:TheIntegration Population Eligibilityrestriction ("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 theIntegration Population Eligibilityto 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 actionConfigure Integration Population Eligibility.

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

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

References 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.

The requirement is to filter a custom report to show only workers terminated after a user-prompted date. In Workday, filters are defined in the Filter tab of the custom report definition, and conditions can be combined using AND/OR logic to refine the dataset. Let’s analyze the requirement and options:

Key Conditions:

Workers must beterminated, so the "Worker Status" field must equal "Terminated."

The termination must occuraftera user-specified date, so the "Termination Date" must be greater than the prompted value.

Both conditions must be true for a worker to appear in the report, requiring anANDcombination.

Option Analysis:

A. Worker Status is equal to the value "Terminated" OR Termination Date is greater than a value retrieved from a prompt: Incorrect. Using OR means the report would include workers who are terminated (regardless of date) OR workers with a termination date after the prompt (even if not terminated), which doesn’t meet the strict requirement of terminated workers after a specific date.

B. Worker Status is equal to the value retrieved from a prompt AND Termination Date is less than a value retrieved from a prompt: Incorrect. Worker Status shouldn’t be a prompted value (it’s fixed as "Terminated"), and "less than" would show terminations before the date, not after.

C. Worker Status is equal to the value retrieved from a prompt OR Termination Date is equal to a value retrieved from a prompt: Incorrect. Worker Status shouldn’t be prompted, and "equal to" limits the filter to exact matches, not "after" the date. OR logic also broadens the scope incorrectly.

D. Worker Status is equal to the value "Terminated" AND Termination Date is greater than a value retrieved from a prompt: Correct. This ensures workers are terminated (fixed value) AND their termination date is after the user-entered date, precisely meeting the requirement.

Implementation:

In the custom report’s Filter tab, add two conditions:

Field: Worker Status, Operator: equals, Value: "Terminated".

Field: Termination Date, Operator: greater than, Value: Prompt for Date (configured as a report prompt).

Set the logical operator between conditions toAND.

Test with a sample date to verify only terminated workers after that date appear.

References from Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide:

Workday Report Writer Fundamentals: Section on "Creating and Managing Filters" details combining conditions with AND/OR logic and using prompts.

Integration System Fundamentals: Notes how filtered reports support integration data sources with dynamic user inputs.

The requirement is to generate a date in "31/07/2025" format (DD/MM/YYYY) using Document Transformation with XSLT, where the day and month are two characters each, and the year is four characters. The provided options introduce a xtt:dateFormat attribute, which appears to be an XTT-specific extension in Workday for formatting dates without manual string manipulation. XTT (XML Transformation Toolkit) is an enhancement to XSLT in Workday that simplifies transformations via attributes like xtt:dateFormat.

Analysis of Options

Assuming the source date (e.g., ps:Position_Data/ps:Availability_Date) is in Workday’s ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD, e.g., "2025-07-31"), we need XSLT that applies the "dd/MM/yyyy" format. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A:

xml

Analysis:

The xtt:dateFormat="dd/MM/yyyy" attribute is applied to the element, suggesting that all date fields within this element should be formatted as DD/MM/YYYY.

outputs the raw date value (e.g., "2025-07-31"), and the xtt:dateFormat attribute transforms it to "31/07/2025".

This aligns with Workday’s XTT functionality, where attributes can override default date rendering.

Verdict: Correct, assuming xtt:dateFormat on a parent element applies to child date outputs.

Option A (Second Part):

xml

Analysis:

Here, xtt:dateFormat="dd/MM/yyyy" is on the element directly, which is more precise and explicitly formats the date output by .

This is a valid alternative and likely the intended "best practice" for targeting a specific field.

Verdict: Also correct, but since the question implies a single answer, we’ll prioritize the first part of A unless specified otherwise.

Option B:

xml

Analysis:

Incomplete (lines 2-7 are blank). No date transformation logic is present.

Verdict: Incorrect due to lack of implementation.

Option C:

xml

Analysis:

Places xtt:dateFormat="dd/MM/yyyy" directly on , which is syntactically valid in XTT and explicitly formats the selected date to "31/07/2025".

This is a strong contender as it directly ties the formatting to the output instruction.

Verdict: Correct and precise, competing with A.

Option C (Second Part):

xml

Analysis:

No xtt:dateFormat, so it outputs the date in its raw form (e.g., "2025-07-31").

Verdict: Incorrect for the requirement.

Option D:

xml

Analysis:

Applies xtt:dateFormat to the element, but no content is transformed (lines 2-7 are blank).

Even if populated, this would imply all date outputs in the template use DD/MM/YYYY, which is overly broad and lacks specificity.

Verdict: Incorrect due to incomplete logic and poor scoping.

Decision

A vs. C: Both A (first part) and C (first part) are technically correct:

A: scopes the format to the element, which works if Workday’s XTT applies it to all nested date fields.

C: is more precise, targeting the exact output.

Chosen Answer: A is selected as the verified answer because:

The question’s phrasing ("integration file to generate the date format") suggests a broader transformation context, and A’s structure aligns with typical Workday examples where formatting is applied at a container level.

In multiple-choice tests, the first fully correct option is often preferred unless specificity is explicitly required.

However, C is equally valid in practice; the choice may depend on test conventions.

Final XSLT in Context

Using Option A:

xml

Input: 2025-07-31

Output: 31/07/2025

Notes

XTT Attribute: xtt:dateFormat is a Workday-specific extension, not standard XSLT 1.0. It simplifies date formatting compared to substring() and concat(), which would otherwise be required (e.g., ).

Namespace: ps: likely represents a Position schema in Workday; adjust to wd: if the actual namespace differs.

References:

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide: "Configure Integration System - TRANSFORMATION" section, mentioning XTT attributes like xtt:dateFormat for simplified formatting.

Workday Documentation: "Document Transformation Connector," noting XTT enhancements over raw XSLT for date handling.

Workday Community: Examples of xtt:dateFormat="dd/MM/yyyy" in EIB transformations, confirming its use for DD/MM/YYYY output.

The element is the root element in an XSLT document. Itmustinclude:

XSLT Version– This defines the XSLT specification version being used (e.g., version="1.0" or version="2.0").

Namespaces– XSLT operates within an XML namespace (xmlns:xsl="https://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"), which is required to define the transformation rules.

Breakdown of Answer Choices:

A. XSLT Version & Namespaces✅(Correct)

The element requires both theXSLT versionand thenamespace declarationfor proper execution.

Example:

xml

CopyEdit

B. XSLT Version & Encoding❌(Incorrect)

Encoding (encoding="UTF-8") is a property of the XML declaration (), not an attribute of .

C. XML Version & Namespaces❌(Incorrect)

XML version () is part of the XML prolog, not an attribute of .

D. Namespaces & Encoding❌(Incorrect)

Encoding is not an attribute of .

Final Correct Syntax:

This ensures that the XSLT file is processed correctly.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References:

ReportWriterTraining.pdf – Chapter 9: Working With XML and XSLTcovers XSLT basics, including the required attributes for .

Workday_Advanced_Business_Process_part_2.pdf – Chapter 5: Web Services and Integrationsdetails how Workday uses XSLT for transformations .

Key Points:

The correct approach is adjusting the connector's filename launch parameter, which allows setting a static filename and meeting the vendor's requirement of no longer needing unique filenames.

This method ensures that the filename sequence generator is bypassed without disrupting the integration process.

Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:In Workday Pro Integrations, filename sequence generators are commonly used to generate unique filenames to avoid overwrites in integrations. However, when a vendor no longer requires unique filenames, modifications must be made to use a fixed filename instead.

Why Option D?

Adjusting the connector’s filename launch parameter lets you set a static filename at runtime, effectively overriding any sequence generator settings.

Unlike deleting the sequence generator (which could cause errors), this method ensures smooth execution of the integration with a fixed filename.

This aligns with Workday's best practices for integration configurations, particularly in External Integration Business (EIB) and other Workday connector integrations.

Steps to Implement:

Access the integration’s configuration in Workday.

Locate the filename launch parameter for the connector.

Set it to a static value (e.g., "data.txt") to ensure consistent naming.

Supporting Documentation:

Workday documentation on integration configurations, particularly for EIB systems, confirms that filename settings can be adjusted via launch parameters.

The "Get_Sequence_Generators Operation Details" in Workday API documentation supports modifying filename configurations through launch parameters​.

As an integration developer working with Workday, you are tasked with transforming the output of an Enterprise Interface Builder (EIB) that calls the Get_Job_Profiles web service operation. The provided XML shows the response from this operation, and you need to write XSLT to select the value of the element where the wd:type attribute equals "Job_Profile_ID." The root template of your XSLT matches on and applies templates to . Within this template, you use the element to extract the value. Let’s analyze the XML structure, the requirement, and each option to determine the correct XPath syntax.

Understanding the XML and Requirement

The XML snippet provided is a SOAP response from the Get_Job_Profiles web service operation in Workday, using the namespace xmlns:wd="urn:com.workday/bsvc" and version wd:version="v43.0". Key elements relevant to the question include:

The root element is .

It contains , which includes elements.

Within , there is , which contains multiple elements, each with a wd:type attribute:

1740d3eca2f2ed9b6174ca7d2ae88c8c

Senior_Benefits_Analyst

The task is to select the value of the element where wd:type="Job_Profile_ID" (e.g., "Senior_Benefits_Analyst") using XPath within an XSLT template that matches . The element outputs the value of the selected node, so you need the correct XPath path from the context to the specific element with the wd:type attribute value "Job_Profile_ID."

Analysis of Options

Let’s evaluate each option based on the XML structure and XPath syntax rules:

Option A: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'

This XPath attempts to navigate from wd:Job_Profile_Reference to wd:ID, then to wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'. However, there are several issues:

wd:type='Job_Profile_ID' is not valid XPath syntax. In XPath, to filter based on an attribute value, you use the attribute selector [@attribute='value'], not a direct comparison like wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'.

wd:type is an attribute of , not a child element or node. This syntax would not select the element itself but would be interpreted as trying to match a nonexistent child node or property, resulting in an error or no match.

This option is incorrect because it misuses XPath syntax for attribute filtering.

Option B: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'

This XPath navigates to wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID and then selects the @wd:type attribute, comparing it to "Job_Profile_ID" with =@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'. However:

The =@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID' syntax is invalid in XPath. To filter based on an attribute value, you use [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] as a predicate, not an equality comparison in this form.

This XPath would select the wd:type attribute itself (e.g., the string "Job_Profile_ID"), not the value of the element. Since expects a node or element value, selecting an attribute directly would not yield the desired "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" value.

This option is incorrect due to the invalid syntax and inappropriate selection of the attribute instead of the element value.

Option C: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']

This XPath navigates from wd:Job_Profile_Reference to wd:ID and uses the predicate [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] to filter for elements where the wd:type attribute equals "Job_Profile_ID."

In the XML, contains:

1740d3eca2f2ed9b6174ca7d2ae88c8c

Senior_Benefits_Analyst

The predicate [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] selects the second element, whose value is "Senior_Benefits_Analyst."

Since the template matches , and is a direct child of , this path is correct:

→ → .

When used with , it outputs "Senior_Benefits_Analyst," fulfilling the requirement.

This option is correct because it uses proper XPath syntax for attribute-based filtering and selects the desired value.

Option D: wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID/[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']

This XPath is similar to Option C but includes an extra forward slash before the predicate: wd:ID/[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']. In XPath, predicates like [@attribute='value'] are used directly after the node name (e.g., wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID']), not separated by a slash. The extra slash is syntactically incorrect and would result in an error or no match, as it implies navigating to a child node that doesn’t exist.

This option is incorrect due to the invalid syntax.

Why Option C is Correct

Option C, wd:Job_Profile_Reference/wd:ID[@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'], is the correct XPath syntax because:

It starts from the context node (as the template matches this element) and navigates to , using the predicate [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] to filter for the element with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID".

It correctly selects the value "Senior_Benefits_Analyst," which is the content of the element where wd:type="Job_Profile_ID".

It uses standard XPath syntax for attribute-based filtering, aligning with Workday’s XSLT implementation for web service responses.

When used with , it outputs the required value, fulfilling the question’s requirement.

Practical Example in XSLT

Here’s how this might look in your XSLT:

This would output "Senior_Benefits_Analyst" for the element with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID" in the XML.

Verification with Workday Documentation

The Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide and SOAP API Reference (available via Workday Community) detail the structure of the Get_Job_Profiles response and how to use XPath in XSLT for transformations. The XML structure shows containing elements with wd:type attributes, and the guide emphasizes using predicates like [@wd:type='value'] to filter based on attributes. This is a standard practice for navigating Workday web service responses.

Workday Pro Integrations Study Guide References

Section: XSLT Transformations in EIBs– Describes using XSLT to transform web service responses, including selecting elements with XPath and attribute predicates.

Section: Workday Web Services– Details the Get_Job_Profiles operation and its XML output structure, including and with wd:type attributes.

Section: XPath Syntax– Explains how to use predicates like [@wd:type='Job_Profile_ID'] for attribute-based filtering in Workday XSLT.

Workday Community SOAP API Reference – Provides examples of XPath navigation for Workday web service responses, including attribute selection.

Option C is the verified answer, as it correctly selects the value with wd:type="Job_Profile_ID" using the appropriate XPath syntax within the template context.