Showing posts with label technical architect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technical architect. Show all posts

Saturday, April 30, 2016

HTTP/REST API Specifications

Now that I have the pleasure of designing new APIs to support both B2C and B2B use cases, my first thought is to standardize. In the case of APIs, I believe standards reduce the burden of maintenance and improve the ease of integration.

To that end, I sought to define guidelines for all operations. These are not new or novel, but I need these to set shared expectations with my team. And we start with a few core principles:

  1. Follow REST conventions for CRUD operations
  2. Use JSON in all request and response bodies (Content-Type: application/json)...
  3. Except where binary content is involved (Content-Type: multipart/form-data)

REST conventions


Striving to KISS:

Error response body


Success responses will contain appropriate data for the request, but all error response bodies look alike. At least structurally, having only one field.

  • Array<Error> errors - An array of any errors encountered while executing the operation. This field is always present for an error state (any non-200 HTTP status).


Each errors element has the following fields:

  • int code - "for programmatic consumption" (ref Braintree)
  • String message - "for human consumption" (ref Braintree)
  • String component - Whatever we're blaming for the error

Monday, August 31, 2015

What's the Real Risk with Enabling Divisions?

In Salesforce, divisions are a means to improve query and search performance by partitioning data into logical buckets called "divisions". However, like with the Person Accounts feature, many admins may hesitate and think twice about enabling divisions due to this warning: "Enabling divisions is irreversible. After implementing divisions, you cannot revert back to a state that does not have division fields."

"Irreversible", huh? Well... what's the real risk with enabling divisions? I think there is no significant risk.

According to Salesforce Help (Summer '15), enabling divisions may affect (or not) nine key areas. But it seems like the effects can be easily negated or suppressed.

Area Reversal Strategy
SearchRevoke the "Affected by Divisions" permission.
List viewsRevoke the "Affected by Divisions" permission.
ChatterNot supported (i.e., affected).
ReportsRevoke the "Affected by Divisions" permission.
Viewing records and related listsNot affected.
Creating new recordsSet to the global division.
Editing recordsSet to the global division.
Custom objectsSet to the global division.
RelationshipsSet to the global division.

In short, if you want to give divisions a try, talk to a few people about enabling the feature. If the foremost argument against enabling divisions is simply that it's irreversible, go ahead and just enable it anyway (in a full sandbox first). If it doesn't work for you, you can always revoke the Affected by Divisions permission from all users.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Why Roll-Up Summary Requires Master-Detail

There's an idea that is 7 years old on the Success Community titled, "Eliminate Need for Master-Detail Relationship for Roll-ups", and users have voted the idea up to over 25,000 points.


I won't lie. I am most likely one of the 2,500 users who voted in favor of the idea, who thought I can't believe a no-brainer like this is still an idea and not a GA feature!

But today, while watching Who Sees What: Record Access Via Sharing Rules I suddenly realized that the reason for the delay could actually be ridiculously simple: Implementing this feature would violate the security design of the Salesforce1 Platform. How? By exposing information that would otherwise be hidden when OWD is set to "Private".

Scenario: VIP bank accounts


Let's say you're a system administrator for a fictitious financial institution called SaaS Bank. At SaaS Bank, there are everyday customers, and then there are VIP customers. VIP customers at SaaS Bank are high-profile individuals of great importance or great wealth, and a few notable VIPs include Barack Obama, Warren Buffett and Marc Benioff.

Understandably, VIPs get the white glove treatment. Their relationships are discretely managed by handful of bankers in the Private Bank department within SaaS Bank. These bankers are known as Private Bankers, and their number one priority is protecting their client's sensitive data, namely the clients' bank accounts and balances.

Data on customers' bank accounts are stored in a custom object labeled Bank Account, and all bank accounts serviced by SaaS Bank are tracked in this object.

The security requirement: Everyone at SaaS Bank should be able to see that a VIP is indeed a customer, but only Private Bankers (and their trusted colleagues) should be able to see the bank accounts held by a VIP.

The simple solution would be to make the Bank Account custom object private using OWD. And to relate Bank Account records back to a customer (i.e., a standard Account record), the object has a Lookup(Account) field, not a Master-Detail(Account) field.

The tricky requirement: All users want to see aggregate balance data for their customers.

So, if you could create a Roll-Up Summary field on the Account object that sums all balances for a customer, you would violate the private sharing model for the Bank Account object. A Roll-Up Summary field holds a value that is calculated based on all pertinent records.

In a private sharing model, how would... how could the Roll-Up Summary field hold a value that simultaneously shows 0 to a regular banker, the total balance to a Private Banker and something in between to other bankers with whom a Private Banker has manually shared records? The answer is it can't.

Objects with Master-Detail fields inherit the record access controls on parent objects. In this case you can present aggregate information on parent records via Roll-Up Summary fields, because if you have access to the parent record you also have access to all child records. But when you use a Lookup field instead because you need different record access for child records, well...

Okay, I get it, and I still need a workaround


I think there are legitimate reasons why an organization would want aggregate data to be automatically calculated and displayed through a Lookup relationship. There are two ways to work around this:
  • Ignore the built-in security constraint and leverage Apex running in system context to perform the roll-up. You can even use an off-the-shelf solution the free Declarative Lookup Rollup Summaries app or the paid Rollup Helper app.
  • Use a custom visual element (e.g., Visualforce page) to display a contextual roll-up, taking into account the current user's access to child records. This would leverage the with sharing keyword to accurately display different values to different users.

In the end, it would be nice of either of the above options were made into native features. And I'm guessing that the first option, the convenient and intentional deviation from an established security model, is what the 2,500 supporters of that 7-year-old idea want.

Who Sees What: Record Access Via Roles (Corrected)

I'm admittedly a bit disappointed in the Who Sees What: Record Access Via Roles video. When I first read about the Who Sees What series, I thought it was awesome that salesforce.com decided to produce visual aids on the topic of security. As an alternative to the Security Implementation Guide, which boasts over 100 pages of official documentation on Salesforce security, I expected the videos to demystify the flexible and nuanced security controls available to system administrators.

However, after watching the Record Access Via Roles video, I feel that almost 70% of the content within is either misleading or simply inaccurate.

Note: I spent significant time staging test cases in an org before deciding to write this blog post, so please let me know if any part of my writing is technically wrong.

2:10 Three ways to open up access? Not quite...


In the AW Computing scenario, the presenter says that access to private Opportunity records can be opened up in one of three ways, quoted below:
  • "No access. In essence, this maintains the org-wide default of private. Users in this role would not be able to see opportunities that they do not own."
  • "View only. Users in a role can view opportunities regardless of ownership."
  • "View and edit. Users in a role can view and edit opportunities regardless of ownership."

This sounds good in concept, but as the video progresses to the demo portion to show how the three ways are actually implemented, the problem becomes clear. The presenter is actually misconstruing and wrongly explaining the Opportunity Access options.

In reality, the implicit access granted through the role hierarchy automatically solves the requirement presented in the video, and the Opportunity Access options are completely irrelevant to the hypothetical situation.

A more accurate explanation


Let's assume that the role hierarchy is set up as implied by the visual at 1:40 in the video.



Alan can see and edit whatever opportunities Karen and Phil can see and edit. The two reasons are that Alan is above Karen and Phil in the role hierarchy, and that OWD for the Opportunity object is configured to grant access using hierarchies (which as of Spring '15 you still cannot disable for standard objects). There are no more granular controls for records owned within a subordinate chain. If Karen can see a record, Alan can see that record. If Karen can edit a record, Alan can edit that record. Access via subordinates in the hierarchy is that simple.

So what do the Opportunity Access options do? Simply put, the options do exactly what the Role Edit page says they do.


Opportunity Access options have nothing to do with roles and subordinates. The selected option comes into play in situations, such as ones involving account teams, where a user from one branch in the role hiearchy owns an account, but a user from a different branch owns an opportunity for that account.

Try it yourself


Admittedly this will be really difficult if you don't have access to a sandbox org or a Partner Enterprise Edition org, but here's the idea.

Your role hierarchy looks something like the following:
  • CEO
    • SVP Products
      • Product Sales Manager
    • SVP Services
      • Services Sales Manager

Configure Opportunity Access for all roles in the hierarchy so that "users in this role cannot access opportunities that they do not own that are associated with accounts that they do own."

Set OWD for Opportunity to "Private", then do the following:
  1. Log in as a Product Sales Manager
  2. Create an account
  3. Create an opportunity
  4. Log in as a Services Sales Manager
  5. Verify that you cannot see the opportunity
  6. Create a new opportunity on the account owned by the Product Sales Manager
  7. Log in as the Product Sales Manager
  8. Verify that you cannot see the new opportunity created by the Services Sales Manager
  9. Log in as the administrator
  10. Change the Opportunity Access for the Product Sales Manager role so that "users in this role can view all opportunities associated with accounts that they own, regardless of who owns the opportunities."
  11. Log in as the Product Sales Manager
  12. Verify that you can now see the new opportunity created by the Services Sales Manager
  13. Verify that you you cannot edit that opportunity

Saturday, May 30, 2015

The Apex Ten Commandments (in Writing)

For anyone (like me) who couldn't find the slides to The Apex Ten Commandments recording referenced on the Architect Core Resources page, here's the written list:

  1. Thou shalt not put queries in for loops
  2. Thou shalt not put DML in for loops
  3. Thou shalt have a happy balance between clicks & code
  4. Thou shalt only put one trigger per object
  5. Thou shalt not put code in triggers other than calling methods and managing execution order
  6. Thou shalt utilize maps for queries wherever possible
  7. Thou shalt make use of relationships to reduce queries wherever possible
  8. Thou shalt aim for 100% test coverage
  9. Thou shalt write meaningful and useful tests
  10. Thou shalt limit future calls and use asynchronous code where possible

And I just have a couple of comments to add for color.

Comments on #7


I haven't tested this hypothesis yet, but... does this commandment still hold with large data volumes? Especially in the context of batch Apex? One certainty is that executing a single query like this is convenient for the developer. But when the query would return thousands of records that reference a small set of parent records, perhaps at larger data volumes a more efficient approach would be to split the query and leverage commandment #6 instead.

Comments on #10


The future annotation is slowly become obsolete with the introduction of the Queuable interface in Winter '15, although general guidelines for designing asynchronous automation still hold true.

Salesforce SSO in 5 Bullets

For my own edification, I want to summarize single sign-on options with Salesforce as succinctly as possible.

Using non-Salesforce credentials to get into Salesforce


This scenario can be simplified like this: A user already has a username + password combination stored in another system. The user wants to log into Salesforce using that existing username and password, instead of maintaining a separate username and password that's used only to log into Salesforce.

To achieve this, Salesforce allows:

Using Salesforce credentials to get into another app


This scenario can be simplified like this: A user is already logged into Salesforce. The user wants to launch another app without having to authenticate again. Instead, the other app should recognize the user and respond accordingly, based on the the user's Salesforce session.

To facilitate this, Salesforce offers:

Closing thoughts


A company can mix the two approaches above, so that Salesforce becomes an intermediate link in a chain that allows access to a third-party app using credentials maintained in a non-Salesforce system.

Thursday, May 28, 2015

3 Integration Practices Missing from White Paper

I just skimmed through the Integration Patterns and Practices white paper, which seems like a great primer on some time-tested integration approaches. However, two GA features plus a pseudo-integration option seem to be notably absent from the document.


Am I forgetting any other options? Please let me know!

Force.com Canvas


This is a well documented feature for which I'll summarize the key capabilities as of Summer '15:
  • Authentication via signed request or OAuth 2.0
  • Canvas app in Visualforce via apex:canvasApp component
  • Canvas app in the Publisher as a custom action
  • Canvas app in the Chatter feed as feed items
  • Canvas in the Salesforce1 app via the navigation menu

Lightning Connect


Instead of feeding data back and forth with integration jobs or real-time callouts, Lightning Connect offers a speedy alternative for surfacing external data in Salesforce, using the OData protocol. Simple scenario: Data stored in an on-premise database table can be exposed with a few clicks as an object in Salesforce, that looks and feels to end users like any other standard or custom Salesforce object. No code required!

Furthermore, Summer '15 added some really cool features to Lightning Connect, such as a native Salesforce Connector and the ability to access government and health data backed by Socrata Open Data Portal™. But in my opinion Lightning Connect will become absolutely, ridiculously amazing once write capabilities (still in Pilot) become GA, along with support for Process Builder, validation rules and Apex triggers.

HYPERLINK function in a formula field


Why do I even bother mentioning this? I think simply that the cheapest, crudest means of "integrating" two systems should not be overlooked as an option. Time is money, and if an external system supports deep linking or can process redirects to specific records, using a formula field to dynamically present a clickable URL to a user can be a really quick win.

Monday, May 25, 2015

Force.com Query Optimizer FAQ (cont'd)

The webinar, Inside the Force.com Query Optimizer delivered in April, 2013 is still featured as a relevant resource on the Architect Core Resources page. While the webinar explains many key considerations for designing queries, many questions linger. Let's take a closer look at these open questions, and let me know if you have any of your own to add!

Why does query optimization affect me as an admin? I don't write code.


If I were a betting man, I would bet that under the hood, SOQL queries, reports, list views and related lists on detail pages all tap into the same query execution framework. So, if you manage page layouts, reports and/or list views, you should care about the Force.com Query Optimizer.

What is a selective query?


A selective query is a query that leverages indexes in filters to avoid full table scans and to reduce the number of records in your result set below the selectivity threshold.

Stupid question, but what is an index?


This is a great question. Simply put, an index is a field-based mechanism by which a query can execute significantly faster, compared to execution without the index. Salesforce technical architects don't need to know how an index actually works behind the scenes, much like office workers don't need to know how a Keurig machine makes coffee at the press of a button.

A technical architect probably just needs to know that fields are either indexed or not indexed, and that indexed fields should be used in query filters. The technical architect should probably also know off-hand what standard indexes are available, and that custom indexes have lower selectivity thresholds and can only be created by Salesforce Support.

Anyone hardcore enough to dig into the Oracle database-level index machinery may want to check out the Database Systems course, offered gratis through MIT OpenCourseWare.

What's considered a standard index?


Great question! I wasn't able to find concrete documentation on this question, so you tell me (on Twitter)! I think an official answer would be a welcome addition to the "Force.com Query Optimizer FAQ" article. In the meantime, the list of indexed standard fields can be considered to all be standard indexes.

What is the selectivity threshold? And why should I care?


The selectivity threshold is the maximum number of records that can be returned in a result set, without disqualifying the index-based optimization option for a query. See the Query & Search Optimization Cheat Sheet for the exact calculations used with standard indexes and custom indexes.

Is there a difference between using nested queries vs. separate queries?


This was the first question asked on the Inside the Force.com Query Optimizer webinar during Q&A, "Is using nested queries good practice?" But I don't think the answer fully addressed the question. My personal guess (which needs to be validated in an org that actually contains large data volumes) is that nested queries have negligible impact on the execution time of a query, as long as the queries are not constructed in a way that uses the NOT operator.

The basis for my conjecture is a best guess that nested queries are executed sequentially, following an order of operations that allows the result set from one query to be used in another query. How true is this? I suppose I'll need to test all of the following query structures with selective filters applied:
More importantly, however, it's worth noting that in some instances executing separate queries in Apex is unfeasible, and the only viable alternative is to use nested queries. I could be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but one such situation could be an Apex method that needs to iterate through a result set using a for loop, processing child records for each record returned.

BGP Routing for Salesforce Technical Architects

The "Network Best Practices for Salesforce Architects" page mentions optimizing BGP routing as a means to improve network latency and thereby improve Salesforce performance. But, what exactly is BGP routing?

I found a "Networking 101: Understanding BGP Routing" primer which I thought gave a pretty good 10,000-foot overview of BGP, which stands for Border Gateway Protocol. And from the primer I took away two key points:

  • BGP is primarily used to route information among ISPs or among a large enterprise and its multiple ISPs. As the primer says, "If you are the administrator of a small corporate network, or an end user, then you probably don't need to know about BGP."
  • A Salesforce technical architect should know about BGP and its purpose. Any real work to optimize BGP should be left to the professionals. Just like how a Salesforce solution architect should know about Apex without knowing how to write Apex, a Salesforce technical architect should know about BGP without knowing how to configure or optimize BGP.


In short, Salesforce latency issues can be a pain point for large enterprises that spans multiple regions across the globe. If the internal network has already been reviewed and optimized to the best of the organization's capabilities, a Salesforce technical architect should acknowledge the problem and advocate for engaging seasoned networking professionals.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

Alternative to Force.com Integrations (DEV-502) in CTA Study Guide

The Salesforce CTA Study Guide (Spring '15) recommends completing the "Force.com Integrations (DEV502)" course in preparation for the exam. While the name of the course has changed to "Integrating with Force.com (DEV-502)", the bigger problem is that the course is only offered as a $3,400, 4-day instructor-led course, which I don't have the luxury of taking due to project commitments.

Furthermore, the description of the course reads, "Learn to design and build all types of integrations with Force.com. The first day introduces the major integration methods and demonstrates techniques for using those methods. In the remaining days, you’ll explore the specifics of the major technologies that play a role in integration, including the Force.com Web services API, sites, and portals." My concern is that the description seems outdated. To name a few possible gaps:

  • Portals have been replaced with Communities
  • SSO with SAML 2.0 and OAuth are now possible
  • Canvas enables external apps to be folded in
  • Lightning Connect currently allows reading from (and eventually writing to) external databases as if they were native objects

Searching the training catalog instead for online courses matching the keyword "integrations" returned 37 results. While the resulting list of relevant courses is long, given the goal is to replace a 4-day course I think the following online courses make a good substitute for DEV-502:
  • Integrating with Force.com: An Overview
  • Technical Architect: Force.com Integration Basics
  • Integrating with Outbound Messaging
  • Integrating with Salesforce to Salesforce
  • Integrating with Apex
  • Integrating with the SOAP API
  • Large Data Volumes
  • Integrating with the Force.com Bulk API
  • Introduction to the REST API
  • Integrating with the Force.com and Chatter REST APIs
  • Integrating with the Force.com Streaming API
  • Integrating with Force.com: Security
  • Integrating with Force.com: Single Sign-On
  • Writing Secure Applications on Force.com
  • Security Tips and Tricks
  • Integrating with Force.com Using Mashups and Canvas

And a bonus module would be to complete the official Salesforce1 Lightning Connect Tutorial on GitHub.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Recursive Process with Autolaunched Flow

In the old days of Salesforce, if a workflow field update occurred during a DML operation, the before and after triggers would for that object would execute a second time. But in the new world of Process Builder with autolaunched flows, how does the order of operations play out?

The Spring '15 documentation seems to imply that processes only fire once. The reason I say this is there is no corresponding explanation for processes in the same vein as the explicit explanation (shown below) for how a workflow rule can cause triggers to fire again.


As with many things in Salesforce, I like to trust and verify. And I found that Process Builder processes actually can cause triggers and the process itself to execute up to five (5) more times. I couldn't find this documented anywhere, but that seems to be the de facto limit on process recursion.

The proof


To prove this to myself, I decided to stage a manual test based on the following constructs:
  • A custom object named TriggerEvent__c exists as a child to the Account object
  • An Account trigger exists to create a TriggerEvent__c record before update
  • A process exists that launches a flow, which increments the Num Employees value by one if Num Employees is not blank

Under this setup, when I updated an account and entered 100 for Num Employees, I actually ended up with 106 for Num Employees and six new child TriggerEvent__c records.

update vs. undelete in Apex Triggers

Based on the Implementing Triggers training module, there are only four DML operations for which triggers can be executed: insert, update, delete and undelete. But, when an undelete operation occurs, does that also count as an update operation, whereby the sObject.IsDeleted value is toggled?

To settle the matter for my own benefit, I create an Apex test to validate my assumptions. What I learned and confirmed were the following:

  • Only one of Trigger.isUpdate, Trigger.isDelete and Trigger.isUndelete will ever be true during trigger execution. This means that the three operations are indeed distinct and constitute different trigger contexts.
  • The ALL ROWS keyword is required to retrieve soft-deleted records that are in the Recycle Bin

Below are the trigger and its test class I used.

AccountTrigger.cls



AccountTriggerTest.cls


Monday, April 20, 2015

Salesforce Limits All Developers Should Know

As I was going through the Object-Oriented Programming in Apex training module, the section on "Limit Methods" reminded me that out of the myriad limits detailed in Salesforce Limits Quick Reference Guide, there are some that are more important than others. Which ones? How about the ones that have their own Limits methods...


To that end I went through the exercise myself and compiled a list of the Limits methods and what the respective limits are, using the helpful resources below.


This was a great learning experience for me, as I discovered many old limits have been deprecated, especially the ones previously affecting describe methods! It was also interesting to note that there is no limit on callouts per 24-hour period, or at least none that I could find.

Surprises with and without sharing in Apex

I'll admit that I never dug too deep into the with sharing and without sharing keywords. At a high level I felt that if I want to enforce security and visibility, I should use with sharing. Otherwise I should use without sharing, which I also assumed was the default.

The Object-Oriented Programming in Apex training module surprised me by telling me that CRUD permissions and field-level security ("FLS") are ignored both with sharing and without sharing! Also, system mode simply means that record-level read and edit privileges are ignored, since CRUD and FLS are always ignored.

This is contrary to what I'd inferred from the Apex Code Developer's Guide, which writes, "In system context, Apex code has access to all objects and fields— object permissions, field-level security, sharing rules aren’t applied for the current user." My interpretation of this statement was that on the flip side, when with sharing is applied, "object permissions, field-level security, sharing rules" would all be applied for the current user.

It was a bit hard for me to believe that Apex would not respect CRUD (if not FLS) permissions, so I created a Visualforce page to test this in my org. And it seemed to me that indeed, an Apex controller created using the with sharing keyword would allow a user without the Delete object permission to delete a record. Crazy... am I missing something?

Well! What's more interesting was that with a standard controller, CRUD permissions are always observed with actions like delete(), regardless of whether an extension class is defined with sharing or without sharing. For example, a button that invoked the StandardController.delete() action would automatically be hidden if a user didn't have the Delete object permission. Furthermore, if a custom action in the extension class invoked the standard controller's action, the custom action would also be subject to the user's CRUD permission, generating an "insufficient privileges" error.

So, I guess the way to enforce CRUD is to use standard controllers, which I don't think is always feasible, especially with mass actions.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Alternative to DEV-501 Modules in CTA Study Guide

When planning my CTA studies, I didn't realize that the "Apex" and "Visualforce Controllers" modules mentioned in the Study Guide are actually courses in Spring '15, not modules. The Apex course is 331 mins, and the Visualforce Controllers course is 172 mins. Together that's over 8 hours of material to cover.

So, instead of going through both courses in full, since there seem to be several basic modules that I'm going to guess that really won't be useful for me, I'm going to revise my plans to cover just a few modules from each course.

From the Apex course:

  • Data Types and Logic
  • Object-Oriented Programming in Apex
  • Implementing Triggers
  • Working with Web Services
  • Receiving and Sending Emails Through Apex
  • Advanced Topics


From the Visualforce Controllers course:

  • Visualforce Controller Extensions and Custom Controllers
  • Further Visualforce Controller Topics


Another problem with the study guide is that there is no Managing Development Lifecycle module, or at least not one that I could find in the training catalog. In this cases I'm going to replace this "module" with simply reading through salesforce.com's official Development Lifecycle Guide.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Salesforce Security & Visibility Design Considerations

I felt compelled to create a Salesforce Security & Visibility Design Considerations matrix to synthesize and expand on the information presented in the Design Considerations training module, part of the Building Applications with Force.com - Part 1 course. We already have a similar template internally in my company, but creating one from scratch and adding to it on my own feels like a good way to internalize the knowledge.

The matrix focuses on two aspects: object security and record visibility. Specifically, who has permissions to do what with each object, and who can see what records in each object.

To control the "doing", the most straightforward way is to use object permissions with profiles and permission sets. However, it is conceivable that less admin-friendly and user-friendly options can be used to prevent certain operations. Below are a couple of examples:

  • A validation rule can be used to prevent editing closed opportunities
  • A Process Builder process could fire an autolaunched flow that reaches a fault condition, causing the create or edit operation to fail. Although I doubt anyone would do this right now, not only because it's cumbersome to implement but also because the error presentation in Spring '15 is not very pretty.
  • An Apex trigger can be used to add errors to a record, thereby preventing the create, edit or delete operation

To control the "seeing" of records, the only practical means are to use the role hierarchy, teams (where applicable) and sharing rules. However, I do want to point out one technically possible way to restrict visibility in the UI, and that is to use Visualforce page overrides for standard actions. A Visualforce page could use the init action to route the user to a different page based on record and user criteria. While in theory the approach would work, in practice the override would fall flat because of incompatibility with Salesforce1 and because users can create reports or list views to see the "hidden" records.

Alternative to "Designing Applications" Module in CTA Study Guide

The CTA Study Guide recommends the following three DEV-401 modules: Designing Applications, Data Management, and Enhancing the User Interface Using Visualforce. However, upon checking the training catalog I couldn't find an online module titled "Designing Applications".

Searching for "designing applications", the catalog returned two relevant courses: Building Applications with Force.com - Part 1 & Part 2. So, based on the descriptions I figured the following modules would make a more complete set to start my training:

  • Design Considerations. This module introduces the business requirements that an organization might have when setting up security and access.
  • Managing Your Users' Experience. Learn how to set up users with appropriate permissions. See how licenses and profiles dictate a user's access to an application.
  • Controlling Access to Records. Examine different ways in which users receive access to records: through ownership, organization wide defaults, roles and sharing rules.
  • Designing Data Access Security. This module provides a summary of security and access features. Through a number of business scenarios, students will have the opportunity to apply the knowledge that they have gained about determining user access.
  • Data Management. Learn the basics of data management including record IDs, external IDs, and object relationships.
  • Enhancing the User Interface Using Visualforce. Discover what Visualforce is and its features and capabilities. Learn the basics of Visualforce syntax and how Visualforce components are similar to HTML and XML. Learn how to create Visualforce pages and add them into an application.
  • Additional Uses for Visualforce. Continue to explore using Visualforce pages to change the look and feel of a page, to display Salesforce data on a website using AJAX and JavaScript in conjunction with Visualforce, and to develop Visualforce pages for mobile devices.

Personalized Schedule for My 30-Day Action Plan

Yesterday I created The CTA Review Board Candidate's 30-Day Action Plan. But when I looked ahead at my work commitments and personal events, I realized that the plan is useless without the context of my own life. So, I created a daily schedule and used some formulas and conditional formatting to give better form to my plan.


Now that I'm comfortable knowing I won't burn myself out or neglect my personal relationships, I'm ready to dig into Day 1 (at a really late hour, I know).

Monday, April 13, 2015

The CTA Review Board Candidate's 30-Day Action Plan

Having already passed salesforce.com's Certified Technical Architect Multiple-Choice Exam, and having then failed my first attempt at the Review Board Presentation, I'm now faced with a sobering reality: My second (and likely final) attempt at the TA certification is less than 60 days away.

Complicated by the following factors, I asked myself, "Can I really do this?"
  • I'm fully billable for 40 hrs/wk between now and then on an important project where my role is the Salesforce technical architect
  • I'm the happy father of a 7-month-old, and there's no one at home to support my wife except me, since our closest parent is about 1,000 miles away
  • I'm paying out of pocket to take an MBA class right now that I cannot afford to fail

The reality seems to be, "Do I really have a choice?" It's now or never, sink or swim. So, to help center myself and to aid any others who're about to embark on a similar journey, I'm going to lay out what I'm going to do in the next 30 calendar days, dubbing it, The CTA Review Board Candidate's 30-Day Action Plan.

A few notes on terminology used in the plan:

  • A "comprehensive scenario" includes use cases for Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, Community Cloud, Chatter, the Salesforce1 Platform, the Salesforce1 mobile app and Heroku
  • "Large data volumes" means that at least one object holds over 1 million records
  • A "technical work stream" involves making changes to Salesforce itself or to an integration job or migration effort

Luckily for me, in Spring '15 the requirement for a customer case study is no more! This change implies extra scrutiny on the Hypothetical Scenario Exam, Presentation, and Discussion, but I feel the odds for me personally just improved ever so slightly.

All right, then. Let's do this!