support@Free-Braindumps.com
Register Login
Cisco
CompTIA
ISC
EC-Council
EXIN
Fortinet
ITIL
Juniper
Microsoft
VMware
Avaya
SAP
Google
NVIDIA
Salesforce
Amazon
Palo Alto Networks
ISC2
Splunk
ServiceNow
All Vendors
  1. Home
  2. Exams
  3. Pegasystems
  4. PEGACPLSA88V1

Pegasystems PEGACPLSA88V1 Exam Actual Questions
Certified Pega Lead System Architecture 8.8 (Page 5 )

Updated On: 17-Jul-2026
Page 5 of 49
PDF with 238 Questions

BiyCo has two development projects currently in progress developed by independent teams. One team builds the Quoting application. Another team builds the Policy Administration application.

Development takes place on different servers with separate rulebases. The Quoting application is built on the Policy Administration application. The Policy Administration application requires enhancements to support other areas of the business. The Quoting team is notified when the Policy Administration application is versioned. The Quoting team responds by importing a HAP containing the new version. Select the two best practices to minimize potential development conflicts and work with the most current version of the Policy Administration application. (Choose Two)

  1. Periodically rebase the Policy Administration application.
  2. Switch between applications when modifying rules.
  3. Perform branch reviews when merging brandies.
  4. Share rulesets between both applications.

Answer(s): A,C

Explanation:

To minimize development conflicts and work with the most current version of the Policy Administration application:
Periodic Rebasing: Regularly rebase the Policy Administration application to ensure that the Quoting application is built on the most recent version. This practice helps in keeping the applications synchronized and reduces integration issues.
Branch Reviews: Conduct branch reviews when merging branches. This ensures that all changes are thoroughly reviewed and validated before they are integrated, reducing the likelihood of conflicts and maintaining code quality.


Reference:

Pega Platform documentation on branching, rebasing, and branch review processes.



Using the information shown in the case structure below, which option is always true?

  1. Resolution of the Event Booking case requires the Parking case to be resolved.
  2. Parking, Weather, and Hotel cases must be instantiated for the Event case to process correctly.
  3. The Weather case can be instantiated without a parent Event Booking case.
  4. The Parking class must inherit from the Event Booking class.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

To determine which option is always true based on the case structure, let's analyze each option:
A . Resolution of the Event Booking case requires the Parking case to be resolved. This may not always be true unless explicitly defined in the case dependencies or resolution conditions within the application.
B . Parking, Weather, and Hotel cases must be instantiated for the Event case to process correctly. This is not necessarily true unless the Event Booking case is designed to always require these sub- cases.
C . The Weather case can be instantiated without a parent Event Booking case. This is always true as sub-cases can typically be instantiated independently of their parent cases. The Weather case can be a standalone case type or instantiated through other means. D . The Parking class must inherit from the Event Booking class.

This is not always true as class inheritance depends on the application design and how classes are structured in the hierarchy.
Based on this analysis, the verified answer is:
C . The Weather case can be instantiated without a parent Event Booking case.


Reference:

Pega Documentation on Case Types: Case Types
Pega Documentation on Sub-Cases: Sub-Cases



Inconsistent formatting of phone numbers is causing, usability issues. You hnvo been asked to enh interface to ensure all phone numbers are automatically reformatted consistently.
Which two options incorporate best practices for applying the required formatting? (Choose Two)

  1. Configure a Declare Constraint rule.
  2. Configure an Edit Validate rule.
  3. Configure a Custom Control.
  4. Configure an Edit Input rule.

Answer(s): B,D

Explanation:

To ensure consistent formatting of phone numbers and improve usability, you can use the following options:
B . Configure an Edit Validate rule:
Edit Validate rules are used to enforce specific data formats and validations. By configuring an Edit Validate rule, you can ensure that phone numbers adhere to a consistent format.
D . Configure an Edit Input rule:
Edit Input rules allow you to transform and standardize data before it is processed by the system. Using an Edit Input rule, you can automatically reformat phone numbers to a consistent format upon input.


Reference:

Pega Documentation on Edit Validate Rules: Edit Validate Rules Pega Documentation on Edit Input Rules: Edit Input Rules



Select the primary reason for developing a set of unit lest cases and automated testing Suites in a continuous integration and continuous deployment (CI/CD) model.

  1. Automated testing reduces costs by reducing the need to hire and I rain testing resources.
  2. Automated testing accelerates the deployment of rules from the development environment to target environments.
  3. Automated testing programmatically ensures quality of rules to maintain the integrity of the pipeline.
  4. Automated testing allows for orchestration between automation server and the Execute Test REST service.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

The primary reason for developing a set of unit test cases and automated testing suites in a CI/CD model is:
C . Automated testing programmatically ensures quality of rules to maintain the integrity of the pipeline.
Automated testing helps ensure the quality and correctness of the rules being deployed. It verifies that changes do not introduce errors and maintains the integrity of the pipeline by catching issues early in the development cycle.


Reference:

Pega Documentation on CI/CD: CI/CD



XYZ Corporation wants to ensure that every attempt by a developer to check a rule into a certain ruleset version is reviewed before that rule is allowed to be checked in. The rule should be automatically sent back to the developer without being checked in if all warnings are not justified and the fields on the history tab are not complete.
How do you address this requirement?

  1. Prior to the first assignment in the ApproveRuleCheckin flow, add a decision shape where one output connector is equivalent to the submitting the SendBack flow action.
  2. Implement a CheckForCustomWarnings activity for each rule included in the requirement. The activity issues a warning whenever the requirement's history tab criteria are not met.
  3. Override the FindReviewers decision tree to invoke a when rule that evaluates the criteria, if the when rule returns true, the decision tree returns SendBack.
  4. Override the SendBack Flow Action adding a pre-ctivity that transfers the assignment to the create operator if the rule's criteria are not met.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

To ensure that every attempt by a developer to check a rule into a certain ruleset version is reviewed before that rule is allowed to be checked in:
C . Override the FindReviewers decision tree to invoke a when rule that evaluates the criteria, if the when rule returns true, the decision tree returns SendBack. By overriding the FindReviewers decision tree and incorporating a when rule, you can enforce criteria such as complete history tab fields and justified warnings. If the criteria are not met, the decision tree returns SendBack, preventing the rule from being checked in.


Reference:

Pega Documentation on Rule Check-In: Rule Check-In
Pega Documentation on Decision Trees: Decision Trees



  PDF
Viewing page 5 of 49
Viewing questions 21 - 25 out of 238 questions


Post your Comments and Discuss Pegasystems PEGACPLSA88V1 exam prep with other Community members:

AI Tutor AI Tutor 👋 I’m here to help!