Salesforce Sharing-and-Visibility-Architect - Salesforce Certified Sharing and Visibility Architect (SP25)

Dynamic Forms allow administrators to create page layouts with field visibility controlled at the section level based on record-specific criteria, such as the Case Record Type. This approach ensures servicing agents only see fields relevant to the specific case type, enhancing usability and performance.

Option A (Correct): Dynamic Forms provide flexibility and scalability for managing field visibility dynamically without duplicating layouts.

Option B: Using different Page Layouts is less efficient because managing and maintaining a separate layout for each case type is cumbersome with 400 fields and eight processes.

Option C: A custom LWC adds complexity and development overhead, making it a less optimal solution for this scenario.

The Partner Community license is designed for use cases requiring access to Opportunities, Campaigns, Leads, and other sales-related records. In this scenario:

Distributors need to use the community to see closing Opportunities.

The Partner Community license is optimized for external users involved in a sales process, like distributors, and offers full access to the Opportunity object.

Option A: Customer Community Plus provides limited access to objects and is not suitable for collaboration on sales records like Opportunities.

Option C: Customer Community licenses are insufficient because they don't support access to Opportunities.

To ensure only specific branch staff can create opportunities for high-risk products, set the Price Book OWD to View Only to limit access. Then, use a sharing rule to share the high-risk price book with the trained staff. This approach ensures:

Untrained users cannot see or use the price book.

Trained staff have explicit access through the sharing rule.

Option A: Manual sharing is inefficient for a large group and less manageable than sharing rules.

Option C: While technically correct, sharing rule implementation is clearer and more scalable for this use case.

If a field disappears from the Account page, the likely cause is that its visibility has been restricted through Field-Level Security (FLS) or a related profile/permission set update. Using Field Accessibility in Object Manager allows the admin to review and troubleshoot field permissions across profiles.

Option A: A "Who Sees What" report is used for record visibility, not field visibility.

Option B: Logging in as a user might help confirm the issue but doesn’t provide insights into why the field is missing.

Option C (Correct): Field Accessibility offers a comprehensive view of field-level security for troubleshooting.

Step 1: Remove Read permission on the Driver profile for the Feedback object to ensure that drivers cannot see their feedback records. Object-level permissions control whether users can see, edit, or delete records.

Step 2: Automatically transfer ownership of feedback to the driver's manager upon submission. This ensures that managers own the feedback records, providing a natural ownership hierarchy for data visibility.

Step 3: Leverage the Role Hierarchy to grant access to the manager's superiors, ensuring that visibility extends appropriately up the organizational structure.

Why Option B is Correct: It directly aligns with the requirement that managers (not drivers) need access, and feedback visibility should follow the Role Hierarchy even after a driver’s manager changes.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option A: Sharing rules would be redundant in this case since the Role Hierarchy already provides the required access.

Option C: Allowing drivers to retain ownership conflicts with the requirement that they should not have visibility.

For detailed references, see Salesforce Role Hierarchies and Ownership documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/

The Public Group and Sharing Rule approach grants access to specified users and, by default, extends access to their managers in the Role Hierarchy. Here’s how the settings interact:

Public Group: The group includes a specific set of sales engineers.

Sharing Rule: It grants access to opportunities for the Public Group. This rule respects the existing Role Hierarchy.

Role Hierarchy: In Salesforce, managers in the hierarchy automatically gain access to records their subordinates can access, ensuring seamless visibility for leadership.

Option A (Correct): Managers of sales engineers in the Role Hierarchy will gain access because sharing rules honor the Role Hierarchy.

Option B: Subordinates of managers will not gain access because sharing rules do not propagate access downward in the hierarchy.

Option C: Other sales engineers outside the specified Public Group will not gain access unless explicitly included in the sharing rule.

Managing List Views:

Sharing list views with Public Groups allows administrators to control visibility efficiently while avoiding clutter for irrelevant users.

Why Option C is Correct:

Public Groups are the most scalable way to manage access to list views for users in specific geographies.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option A: Sharing with individual users is not scalable for managing access to 50+ list views.

Option B: Sharing with a queue is not applicable as queues are used for record assignment, not list view sharing.

For detailed guidance, refer to Salesforce List View Sharing documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/

OWD Settings: Salesforce allows setting different Organization-Wide Defaults (OWD) for internal and external users. By setting the OWD for internal users to Public Read-Only, all internal employees can view ServiceFeedback records without impacting the private access settings for external users (partners).

Why Option C is Correct:

Internal users gain universal read-only access to ServiceFeedback records.

External users (partners) remain restricted based on their existing access because the OWD for external users is set to Private.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option A: Owner-based sharing rules are unnecessary when internal OWD settings can accomplish the goal more efficiently.

Option B: Adjusting the Role Hierarchy would complicate the structure unnecessarily and may still not provide the desired access to all internal users.

For detailed reference, see Salesforce OWD and Sharing Settings documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/

Role Hierarchy and Sharing:

In a private sharing model, Role Hierarchies are a scalable and maintainable way to share records upward with managers while respecting ownership and privacy.

Why Option A is Correct:

Configuring the Role Hierarchy to include service agents and their dealer managers ensures that cases are automatically visible to the dealer managers, without requiring additional sharing rules.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option B: Sharing rules are unnecessary if the Role Hierarchy is correctly configured.

Option C: Sharing groups are not designed for use in partner communities.

For detailed guidance, refer to Salesforce Role Hierarchy and Community Sharing documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/

In Apex, the IsUpdateable() method of the Schema.DescribeFieldResult class checks if the current user has permission to update a specific field. Using this method ensures that the Apex class respects Field-Level Security (FLS) for all profiles, avoiding unauthorized updates.

Option A: Adding the "With Sharing" keyword enforces record-sharing rules but does not enforce field-level security.

Option B: Placing the code in an inner class with "With Sharing" does not address the field-level security issue.

Option C (Correct): Using IsUpdateable() ensures field permissions are honored programmatically, preventing updates to read-only fields.