ACD300 - Appian Certified Lead Developer

To ensure that this story can be developed effectively, you should take two recommended steps:

• Maintain a communication schedule with the third-party resources. Communication is key when working on an integration involving a third-party system, as it can help to clarify the requirements, expectations, and dependencies of both parties. By maintaining a communication schedule, you can ensure that you have regular and timely updates on the progress, issues, and feedback of the integration. You can also use communication tools, such as email, chat, or video conferencing, to facilitate the communication and collaboration between your Appian team and the third-party resources.
• Break down the item into smaller stories. Breaking down a large and complex story into smaller and simpler stories can help to make the development process more manageable and efficient. By breaking down the item into smaller stories, you can reduce the scope and complexity of each story, and focus on delivering one feature or functionality at a time. You can also prioritize and assign the stories to different developers, and track their status and completion more easily.

The other options are not as effective. Option A, acquiring testing steps from QA resources, is not a step to ensure that the story can be developed effectively, but rather a step to ensure that the story can be tested effectively. Option B, identifying subject matter experts (SMEs) to perform user acceptance testing (UAT), is also not a step to ensure that the story can be developed effectively, but rather a step to ensure that the story can be validated effectively. Option E, adding a view that joins the customer data to the data used in calculation, is not a step to ensure that the story can be developed effectively, but rather a design decision that may or may not be appropriate for the integration.

• D. The join between the tables order_detail and product needs to be fine-tuned due to Indices. This is correct because the result of the explain statement showsthat the join between these two tables has a high cost of 0.99, which indicates that it is inefficient and needs to be fine-tuned. One possible reason for the high cost is that there are no indices on the columns that are used for joining these two tables, which leads to a full table scan. Therefore, creating indices on these columns could improve the performance of this join.
• E. The worst join is the one between the table order_detail and customer. This is correct because the result of the explain statement shows that the join between these two tables has a very high cost of 1.00, which indicates that it is the worst join in terms of efficiency and needs to be fine-tuned. One possible reason for the high cost is that there are no indices on the columns that are used for joining these two tables, which leads to a full table scan. Therefore, creating indices on these columns could improve the performance of this join.

The other options are incorrect for the following reasons:

• A. The request is good enough to support a high volume of data, but could demonstrate some limitations if the developer queries information related to the product. This is incorrect because the request is not good enough to support a high volume of data, as it has two joins with very high costs that need to be fine-tuned. Moreover, querying information related to the product would not necessarily cause any limitations, as long as the join between order_detail and product is optimized.
• B. The worst join is the one between the table order_detail and order. This is incorrect because the result of the explain statement shows that the join between these two tables has a low cost of 0.01, which indicates that it is efficient and does not need to be fine-tuned.
• C. The join between the tables order_detail, order and customer needs to be fine-tuned due to indices. This is incorrect because there is no such join between three tables in the result of the explain statement. There are only two joins: one between order_detail and order, and another between order_detail and customer. Each of these joins needs to be fine-tuned separately due to indices.

The correct syntax for referring to the username parameter in the Web API URL is httpirequest.queryParameters.username. This syntax allows you to access the value of the username parameter that is passed in the query string of the URL after the question mark (?). For example, if the URL ishttps://exampleappiancloud.com/suite/webapi/user_management/users?username=john.smith, then httpirequest.queryParameters.username will return john.smith. Verified References:  Appian Documentation, section “Web API”.