Salesforce Certified Integration Architect Exam Dumps & Practice Test Questions

Question 1:

A business is creating a Lightning Web Component (LWC) that displays transaction data gathered from multiple external systems. These transactions are partly stored in custom Salesforce objects, with synchronization occurring periodically via middleware using publish-subscribe and REST API methods. However, because the replication is not in real-time, some data may be missing when users view the LWC. 

What is the most appropriate integration approach for ensuring complete transaction data is shown in the LWC?

A. Trigger a Platform Event and let middleware subscribe and update the custom object when the event is received
B. Call external Enterprise APIs directly from the LWC JavaScript and update the display upon receiving a response
C. Use Apex Continuation to invoke the Enterprise APIs and handle the response through a callback method
D. Use Lightning Data Service with @wire to refresh the view whenever custom object records change

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

This scenario focuses on providing complete and real-time transaction data in a Lightning Web Component, even when Salesforce’s internal data is only partially synchronized due to periodic updates. Because the system relies on middleware and external systems, the challenge lies in integrating external data securely and efficiently.

Option A, using Platform Events and having middleware respond, is useful for improving synchronization, but it doesn’t guarantee immediate visibility of the latest data in the LWC. The update process is asynchronous and relies on eventual consistency. This means users could still see incomplete or outdated data during the time gap before the custom object is updated.

Option B proposes direct API calls from the LWC’s JavaScript to the middleware. While conceptually simple, this is not secure or supported due to Salesforce's browser-based security constraints. Direct external calls from the client-side LWC introduce risks like exposure of API keys, CORS issues, and data leakage.

Option C, which involves using Apex Continuation, is the best fit. This feature enables Apex to manage long-running callouts to external systems asynchronously. The process works like this: the LWC invokes an Apex method, which initiates an external API call to the middleware. Salesforce holds the request open while waiting for a response. Once the response is returned, a callback method handles the data, which can then be sent back to the LWC securely. This technique allows secure, real-time integration while conforming to Salesforce’s governor limits and asynchronous architecture.

Option D, relying on Lightning Data Service with @wire, only works when data changes within Salesforce. Because the custom object is not updated in real-time, it does not guarantee up-to-date information. It simply reflects the local state of the custom object, which might be incomplete due to sync delays.

In conclusion, Option C—using Apex Continuation—is the ideal approach because it enables secure, real-time data retrieval from external systems without relying on outdated local records.

Question 2:

A media company has implemented an Identity and Access Management (IAM) system that supports SAML and OpenID Connect to streamline logins. They want new users to self-register and instantly gain access to their Salesforce Community using Single Sign-On (SSO). 

Which two features must be configured in Salesforce Community to allow secure SSO access and automated onboarding for new users? (Select two.)

A. SAML Single Sign-On with Just-in-Time (JIT) provisioning
B. OpenID Connect Authentication Provider with a Registration Handler
C. OpenID Connect Authentication Provider with Just-in-Time (JIT) provisioning
D. SAML Single Sign-On with a Registration Handler

Correct Answers: A, C

Explanation:

The scenario describes a requirement for seamless onboarding of new users via self-registration, with access granted immediately through Single Sign-On (SSO) into Salesforce Community Cloud. To meet this goal, the Salesforce system must support authentication using industry-standard SSO protocols and allow for dynamic user provisioning during the login process.

Option A is correct. SAML SSO is a standard protocol widely supported by IAM systems. Salesforce can act as the Service Provider (SP), and the IAM system serves as the Identity Provider (IdP). Through Just-in-Time (JIT) provisioning, Salesforce can create user records dynamically the first time a user logs in. As long as the SAML assertion includes all necessary attributes (like username, email, etc.), Salesforce can immediately provision and authorize the user for access to the community, fulfilling both the SSO and onboarding requirements.

Option C is also valid. Salesforce supports OpenID Connect (OIDC) through Authentication Providers. When configured correctly, users are redirected to the external IdP for authentication. Upon successful login, Salesforce can apply JIT provisioning to create or update user accounts. This mechanism is equally effective for ensuring new users get immediate access based on identity data passed from the IdP.

Now, let’s examine the incorrect choices:

Option B includes OpenID Connect with a Registration Handler. While Authentication Providers support Registration Handlers for custom logic during user creation, this option is incomplete and unnecessarily complex. JIT provisioning is the standard and simpler mechanism for this use case. Registration Handlers are more relevant for social login scenarios or when additional customization beyond JIT is required.

Option D combines SAML SSO with a Registration Handler. This is invalid because Salesforce does not use Registration Handlers in conjunction with SAML. Instead, JIT provisioning is the only supported way to create users dynamically during a SAML login.

In conclusion, enabling SAML or OIDC for authentication and pairing it with Just-in-Time provisioning ensures that users are created in Salesforce as part of their first login session. This makes A and C the correct answers to support secure, seamless access to Community Cloud with automated onboarding.

Question 3:

A client wants to compare Platform Events and Outbound Messaging in Salesforce for delivering messages in real-time or near real-time to approximately 3,000 customers. 

What are three important considerations they should keep in mind when choosing between these two messaging options? (Select three.)

A. Platform Events support up to 2,000 concurrent subscribers, while Outbound Messaging can send only 100 notifications per SOAP message.
B. Both Platform Events and Outbound Messaging are declarative tools designed for asynchronous near-real-time messaging but are not suited for strict real-time integration.
C. Both methods guarantee message delivery exactly once, in sequence, without duplication, handled fully by Salesforce.
D. Outbound Messaging ensures message ordering, but Platform Events do not; both offer very high reliability and fault recovery managed by Salesforce.
E. Both are scalable, but Platform Events have specific publishing and delivery limits, unlike Outbound Messaging.

Correct Answers: A, B, E

Explanation:

When selecting between Salesforce Platform Events and Outbound Messaging for asynchronous messaging scenarios, it’s critical to understand the capabilities, constraints, and architectural differences of both solutions, especially with a sizable subscriber base like 3,000 customers.

A is correct because Platform Events can support up to 2,000 simultaneous CometD subscribers. If your use case requires more than 2,000 concurrent listeners (like 3,000 customers), this becomes a limitation. On the other hand, Outbound Messaging can send notifications only to SOAP endpoints and supports up to 100 notifications per batch message. These are significant considerations for scaling and endpoint compatibility.

B is also correct since both Platform Events and Outbound Messaging are declarative, no-code or low-code solutions designed to enable near-real-time messaging. They are asynchronous by nature, meaning there’s no strict guarantee of immediate delivery. This makes them unsuitable for scenarios demanding hard real-time responses (like high-frequency trading or telemetry). Both use retry mechanisms that introduce latency, so neither is ideal for mission-critical real-time integrations.

E is correct because although both options scale well, Platform Events come with explicit limits on event publishing volume and delivery throughput per 24-hour period, which must be managed carefully. Outbound Messaging has fewer documented limits in throughput but is constrained by endpoint type (SOAP only) and batch size. Understanding these limits helps plan for long-term scalability.

Regarding the incorrect options:
C is wrong because neither Platform Events nor Outbound Messaging guarantees exactly-once delivery or strict message ordering. Duplicate events can happen, so receiving systems must handle idempotency. Salesforce manages retries, but guarantees of no duplicates or strict order do not exist, especially for Platform Events.

D is incorrect as Outbound Messaging attempts ordering, but it’s not absolute, and Platform Events explicitly do not guarantee order. Also, fault tolerance and recovery for message delivery failures are not completely managed by Salesforce; endpoint error handling and deduplication are the responsibility of the consumer.

In conclusion, choosing between these two involves understanding subscriber concurrency, delivery guarantees, retry semantics, endpoint compatibility, and platform limits. Platform Events are newer, event-driven, and support a modern pub-sub model but have strict limits. Outbound Messaging is legacy, SOAP-based, and limited in flexibility but simpler for basic workflows. Hence, options A, B, and E best capture the critical factors.

Question 4:

Universal Containers operates multiple cloud and on-premise systems. Their on-premise systems are secured behind corporate firewalls with limited external access. The company wants Salesforce to access this on-premise data in real time to offer a unified experience. 

Which two approaches should be recommended to achieve this goal? (Select two.)

A. Use an ETL batch job on an on-premise server to extract and load data into Salesforce.
B. Build a Heroku app that connects to the on-premise database using ODBC and a Virtual Private Cloud connection.
C. Create custom APIs within the corporate network that Salesforce can invoke.
D. Implement MuleSoft inside the on-premise environment and expose external-facing APIs for Salesforce integration.

Correct Answers: C, D

Explanation:

Integrating Salesforce with on-premise applications for real-time data access requires carefully balancing security, accessibility, and responsiveness, especially when those systems are protected by firewalls and restricted network access.

Option C is correct because developing custom APIs inside the corporate network provides a direct and flexible method to expose on-premise data to Salesforce. These APIs must be secure, supporting standard protocols such as REST or SOAP, and require infrastructure like API gateways, reverse proxies, or secure tunnels to safely allow Salesforce calls through the firewall. Proper authentication, authorization, and encryption are essential to maintain enterprise-grade security. Custom APIs allow real-time data retrieval without needing batch synchronization.

Option D is also correct as MuleSoft is a widely adopted integration platform within the Salesforce ecosystem designed for hybrid integration scenarios. Deploying MuleSoft runtimes on-premise enables creating external APIs that securely expose on-premise data and services. MuleSoft provides built-in capabilities for API management, security policies, traffic throttling, and fault tolerance. It acts as a bridge between cloud and on-premise systems, facilitating scalable, manageable real-time integrations without compromising security.

The other options have drawbacks:

A is incorrect because using ETL batch jobs involves scheduled data transfers, which do not meet the requirement for real-time data access. Batch processing introduces latency and potential data staleness, contradicting the goal of a unified, live view of data.

B is incorrect since building a custom Heroku application that connects to an on-premise database via ODBC and VPC peering introduces complexity and operational overhead. It adds an additional middleware layer that can increase latency and points of failure. While technically feasible, it’s not a standard best practice for real-time Salesforce integrations, especially when dedicated integration tools like MuleSoft exist.

In summary, real-time, secure access to on-premise data from Salesforce is best achieved by either exposing secure APIs within the corporate network or leveraging a specialized integration platform like MuleSoft that supports hybrid connectivity, security, and API management. These approaches offer flexibility, security, and scalability, ensuring Salesforce can serve as a unified interface with live data access.

Therefore, the recommended solutions are C and D.

Question 5:

A major financial institution provides services such as bank accounts, loans, and insurance, relying on a modern core banking system that processes around 10 million transactions daily. The CTO wants to build a Salesforce community portal where customers can view their bank account details and transaction history. 

What integration method should the architect recommend to enable community users to access these financial transactions?

A. Use Salesforce External Service to show transactions on a community Lightning page.
B. Use Salesforce Connect to display transactions as external objects.
C. Import transaction records into Salesforce custom objects and sync using an ETL tool.
D. Use an iframe to embed core banking transaction data within the community.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

In this use case, the financial institution’s core banking system is the authoritative source handling an enormous volume of data—10 million transactions daily. The primary challenge is to enable customers to view their transaction data within a Salesforce community portal without overwhelming Salesforce storage or introducing latency.

The best solution here is Salesforce Connect (option B). Salesforce Connect allows real-time access to external data by creating “external objects” that reference records stored outside Salesforce. This means the actual transaction data remains in the core banking system, and Salesforce simply presents a live view within the community portal. This avoids duplicating huge volumes of data, helps Salesforce maintain optimal performance, and respects storage limits. The external objects behave like native Salesforce objects, providing seamless integration and user experience.

Option A—Salesforce External Services—is mainly designed to declaratively invoke external APIs for transactional purposes, such as submitting data or triggering workflows. It is not optimized for browsing or displaying large volumes of external data in real time, making it unsuitable for displaying millions of transactions.

Option C—migrating transactions into Salesforce custom objects and syncing via ETL—is impractical here. ETL processes run periodically, so data will not be real-time, and importing millions of daily transactions will strain Salesforce storage limits, lead to performance bottlenecks, and increase operational costs dramatically.

Option D—embedding the core banking system UI via an iframe—is generally discouraged. Iframes bypass Salesforce security, access controls, and user interface consistency. They provide poor user experience and complicate maintenance, making this a fragile and risky integration approach.

In summary, Salesforce Connect offers the most scalable, secure, and user-friendly way to display real-time transaction data from the external core banking system without burdening Salesforce with massive data storage or latency. This makes option B the optimal recommendation.

Question 6:

Northern Trail Outfitters (NTO), operating in 34 countries, frequently updates its shipping providers to optimize costs and delivery times. Sales representatives must select valid shipping options based on the customer’s country and obtain real-time shipping cost estimates. 

Which two approaches should an architect recommend to meet these requirements? (Choose two.)

A. Call a middleware service to fetch valid shipping methods.
B. Use a dependent picklist for shipping services filtered by country.
C. Employ middleware to abstract calls to individual shipping providers.
D. Use Platform Events to create and send shipper-specific events.

Correct Answers: A, C

Explanation:

This scenario requires a flexible, scalable approach to manage frequently changing shipping providers while supporting global operations. Key challenges include dynamically identifying valid shipping options per country and retrieving real-time shipping cost estimates for each provider.

Option A is a solid recommendation. Invoking middleware services to fetch valid shipping methods enables the business to externalize complex logic and frequent changes away from Salesforce. The middleware can manage shipping provider configurations, business rules, and country-specific logic centrally. When sales reps request shipping options, Salesforce makes a real-time call to middleware, which returns the current valid services for the given country. This ensures that the shipping options displayed are always accurate and up to date without requiring changes in Salesforce.

Option C complements option A by having middleware act as an abstraction layer over all individual shipping providers. Instead of Salesforce integrating directly with each shipping service—which could vary widely in APIs and data formats—the middleware handles these differences internally. It chooses the correct shipping service to call, formats requests, manages error handling, and standardizes responses. This design shields Salesforce from the complexity and volatility of shipping provider integrations, enabling easier maintenance and rapid adaptability when providers are added or removed.

Option B is not suitable because dependent picklists are static and require manual updates whenever shipping providers change. Given NTO’s frequent changes, maintaining such picklists would be inefficient and error-prone. Furthermore, picklists cannot fetch real-time shipping cost estimates from external services, which is a critical business requirement.

Option D—using Platform Events—is a technology intended for asynchronous, event-driven messaging rather than synchronous data retrieval. Platform Events are not ideal for real-time queries, such as when a sales rep immediately needs valid shipping options or cost estimates. They are better suited for broadcasting updates or triggering background processes, not for fetching on-demand data.

In summary, leveraging middleware to dynamically retrieve valid shipping methods and abstract calls to external shipping providers provides the flexibility, scalability, and maintainability NTO needs. This makes options A and C the best architectural recommendations.

Question 7:

Universal Containers (UC) partners with external agencies for creating advertising banner designs. These design files, roughly 2.5 GB each, reside on an on-premises file system accessible to both UC’s internal staff and these agencies. UC aims to allow community users (external agencies) to view these large files within their Salesforce community portal. 

Which solution should an integration architect propose?

A. Store the files in Salesforce Files linked to records and display both in the community.
B. Configure an External Data Source and use Salesforce Connect with indirect lookup to upload the files as external objects.
C. Create a custom Salesforce object to hold the file location URLs, enabling community users to click and be redirected to the files on the on-premises system.
D. Develop a Lightning component using a request-reply integration to let community users download the files.

Correct Answer: C

Explanation:

When architecting a solution to provide access to large design files (~2.5 GB each) stored on an on-premises system for both internal users and third-party agencies through a Salesforce community, several factors must be carefully weighed: file size constraints, storage costs, user experience, and system performance.

Option A suggests uploading these files directly into Salesforce Files and linking them to records. However, Salesforce Files have a maximum file size limit of 2 GB, and even with workarounds, storing many large files consumes significant, costly Salesforce storage. Also, uploading large files from on-premises to Salesforce introduces latency, complexity, and possible synchronization challenges.

Option B involves using Salesforce Connect with external objects via indirect lookup. While Salesforce Connect excels at integrating structured external data (e.g., databases or REST APIs), it is not designed to handle large binary file transfers or storage. Representing large files as external objects is impractical and unsupported, making this option unsuitable.

Option D proposes a custom Lightning component with a request-reply pattern for downloading files. While technically feasible, transmitting large files through Salesforce layers adds overhead, risks hitting governor limits, and complicates maintenance. It also provides no significant advantage over a simpler redirect approach.

Option C offers the most efficient and scalable solution. By creating a custom object in Salesforce that stores URLs or file paths pointing to the on-premises file locations, community users can access files directly without storing them inside Salesforce. Clicking the URL redirects users seamlessly to the original file location where the on-premises system handles download bandwidth and access control. This design respects Salesforce storage limits, reduces integration complexity, and improves performance.

In summary, redirecting community users to on-premises stored files via URLs in a custom Salesforce object is the optimal approach. It balances performance, cost, and user accessibility without burdening Salesforce with large file storage or complex file transfers. Thus, option C is the best recommendation.

Question 8:

A company needs to automate classification and periodic updates of phone number types (mobile or landline) for up to 100,000 incoming sales calls daily. The classification relies on an external API, and updates can be batched every 6 to 12 hours via on-premises middleware. 

Which architectural component should an integration architect recommend to best support Remote-Call-In and Batch Synchronization integration patterns?

A. Set up Remote Site Settings in Salesforce to authenticate the middleware.
B. Use a firewall and reverse proxy to secure internal APIs exposed externally.
C. Configure a Connected App in Salesforce for middleware authentication.
D. Implement an API Gateway to authenticate and manage requests from Salesforce to middleware (ETL/ESB).

Correct Answer: D

Explanation:

This scenario involves processing a high volume of calls (up to 100,000 daily) and automating phone number type classification by integrating Salesforce with an external API through middleware. The integration pattern requires both batch synchronization (periodic updates every 6-12 hours) and remote call-in (middleware initiating requests or updates).

Option A, configuring Remote Site Settings, is used primarily for Salesforce outbound callouts to external services. In this case, the middleware is expected to initiate communication with Salesforce (an inbound interaction), so Remote Site Settings don’t facilitate the needed authentication or secure integration from middleware to Salesforce.

Option B, involving firewalls and reverse proxies, addresses network security at the infrastructure level but is not an integration architectural component. While firewalls protect resources and restrict network access, they do not provide the fine-grained API management, authentication, or orchestration needed for this high-volume integration.

Option C, creating a Connected App in Salesforce, is a necessary step for external applications to authenticate to Salesforce using OAuth 2.0. However, while important for authentication, Connected Apps alone don’t handle request throttling, routing, data transformation, or monitoring that a robust enterprise integration requires—especially with large data volumes and batch operations.

Option D, using an API Gateway, is the best fit. An API Gateway serves as an intermediary that manages, secures, and scales API calls between Salesforce and middleware. It provides authentication enforcement, request throttling to avoid overload, policy enforcement, request/response transformations, and detailed monitoring. These capabilities are critical for managing the large volume of calls and batch updates efficiently and securely. Additionally, an API Gateway integrates well with Connected Apps for OAuth authentication, creating a secure and manageable integration layer. It also abstracts the internal middleware architecture, enabling flexibility and maintainability.

In conclusion, the API Gateway is purpose-built for scenarios involving complex, high-volume integration patterns like Remote-Call-In and Batch Synchronization. It delivers essential capabilities beyond authentication, making it the recommended solution here. Therefore, option D is the correct answer.

Question 9:

Universal Containers currently uses a custom-built, monolithic web service hosted on-premises to connect Salesforce with multiple other systems such as a legacy billing system, a cloud ERP, and a data lake. This tightly coupled setup is causing system failures and performance bottlenecks. 

What architectural recommendation should be made to enhance integration performance and reduce system interdependencies?

A. Rewrite and optimize the existing monolithic web service to improve efficiency.
B. Adopt a modular approach by decomposing the monolith into smaller microservices.
C. Utilize the Salesforce Bulk API for integrations into Salesforce.
D. Relocate the monolithic web service from on-premises to a cloud environment.

Correct Answer: B

Explanation:

The primary issue with Universal Containers’ current integration architecture lies not just in performance or deployment location but in the tightly coupled monolithic design of their integration web service. This single, bulky service handles multiple point-to-point connections between Salesforce and other systems, making the entire integration fragile. When one component fails, it can cascade into broader system outages. This kind of architecture limits scalability, fault tolerance, and agility.

Option A, rewriting or optimizing the existing monolithic service, may improve performance slightly but fails to solve the fundamental problem of tight coupling. Even with optimizations, a monolithic system remains a single point of failure and tends to be hard to maintain or evolve as business needs change. The lack of modularity means fault isolation is minimal, and deploying changes involves risk for the entire system.

Option B—breaking the monolith into smaller, independent microservices—is the most effective architectural approach. Microservices allow the integration functionality to be decomposed into loosely coupled, single-purpose services. Each microservice can focus on integrating Salesforce with a specific system, such as billing, ERP, or data lake. This approach enhances system resilience because a failure in one service doesn’t directly impact others. It also improves scalability since individual microservices can be scaled according to demand. Microservices align well with modern DevOps practices, enabling faster development cycles, easier testing, and better observability. Furthermore, this design supports containerization, cloud-native deployments, and continuous delivery pipelines, future-proofing the integration landscape.

Option C, using Salesforce Bulk API, addresses a specific need—bulk data transfer—rather than the broader architectural challenge. While Bulk API helps efficiently handle large volumes of data asynchronously, it doesn’t address the systemic problem of monolithic tight coupling or support multi-system integration outside Salesforce.

Option D—moving the monolith to the cloud—may reduce infrastructure maintenance overhead and provide better scalability in terms of resources but does not fundamentally improve the architecture. The same coupling issues persist, simply relocated to a different environment.

In conclusion, decomposing the monolithic service into modular microservices is the best way to increase integration robustness, improve fault tolerance, and facilitate maintenance and scalability. This modern approach supports better decoupling of systems and aligns with industry best practices for complex enterprise integrations.

Question 10:

A new Salesforce initiative requires seamless data updates between Salesforce and internal systems as part of business processes. 

Which three critical pieces of information should a Salesforce Integration Architect gather to accurately design the integration architecture? (Select three.)

A. The integration style such as process-based, data-based, or virtual integration.
B. Timing requirements including real-time, near real-time, synchronous, asynchronous, batch processing, and update frequency.
C. Details of source and target systems, data flow directionality, volume, complexity of transformations, and middleware availability.
D. Integration team skill levels, subject matter expert availability, and governance framework.
E. Core functional and non-functional requirements related to user experience, encryption, community, and licensing.

Correct Answers: A, B, C

Explanation:

When defining an integration architecture for a Salesforce program that requires data synchronization between Salesforce and other internal systems, a Salesforce Integration Architect must collect specific technical and operational details. These inputs shape the design of a reliable, scalable, and secure integration solution.

Option A is essential because understanding the integration style clarifies how systems interact. Integration can be process-based—triggered by business events or workflows (e.g., a Salesforce order triggers ERP fulfillment). Data-based integration focuses on synchronizing records between systems (e.g., account data replication). Virtual integration allows real-time access to external data without storing it in Salesforce, often via Salesforce Connect. Each style carries different technical implications for latency, tooling, and data storage.

Option B deals with timing and frequency—crucial factors influencing the integration method. Real-time or synchronous integration demands immediate response, suitable for scenarios where current data is critical. Near real-time or asynchronous methods allow slight delays, improving system resilience and throughput. Batch processing handles large data sets at scheduled intervals, often off-peak, reducing load. Understanding these aspects guides decisions on API types, event-driven architectures, and middleware orchestration.

Option C involves the source and target systems themselves—the backbone of the integration. Identifying these systems clarifies where data originates and where it flows. Directionality (uni-directional or bi-directional) affects complexity. The volume of data determines performance and API limit considerations. Complex data transformations may require middleware such as MuleSoft for orchestration. Knowing what middleware is available enables leveraging existing tools rather than building custom solutions.

Options D and E—while important for project management, team organization, and platform design—do not directly influence the integration architecture's technical foundation. Integration skills and governance (D) affect delivery risk but not architectural style. User experience, encryption, community, and licensing (E) impact broader platform considerations but are secondary to core integration design.

In summary, gathering detailed information about integration style, timing, and system/data characteristics is vital to architect a robust Salesforce integration solution. These insights enable architects to select appropriate tools, define data flows, and ensure the integration meets business and technical requirements effectively.