The Open Group OGEA-103 TOGAF Enterprise Architecture Combined Part 1 and Part 2 Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 9 Q121-135

Visit here for our full The Open Group OGEA-103 exam dumps and practice test questions.

Question 121

Which solution best enforces automated compliance in Azure DevOps pipelines by preventing non‑compliant resources from being deployed?

A) Use Azure Monitor alerts to detect violations
B) Apply Azure Policy integrated with pipeline workflows
C) Configure manual reviews before each release
D) Document compliance standards in a shared wiki

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Azure Monitor alerts are a powerful tool for maintaining observability within an Azure environment. They allow teams to track metrics, collect logs, and detect anomalies or policy violations after resources have been deployed. Alerts can be configured to notify administrators when specific thresholds are exceeded, such as high CPU usage on virtual machines, unauthorized access attempts, or storage accounts lacking proper encryption. These alerts help teams identify issues and respond quickly, providing valuable visibility into the operational state of cloud resources. However, while Azure Monitor alerts are excellent for detection and response, they are inherently reactive. They identify problems only after resources exist and potentially violate organizational standards or operational expectations. This means that issues are discovered post-deployment, rather than being prevented at the point of creation. Organizations that rely solely on monitoring cannot fully ensure compliance or prevent misconfigurations from occurring. Compliance enforcement requires proactive mechanisms that prevent the creation of non-compliant resources, rather than detecting them after the fact.

Manual reviews before each release are another method that organizations sometimes use to ensure compliance. In this approach, team members, administrators, or compliance officers examine proposed changes before deployment to confirm that they adhere to organizational policies and standards. Manual reviews can involve checking resource types, naming conventions, tagging, network configurations, or security settings. While manual reviews can catch some errors, they are slow, labor-intensive, and prone to human mistakes. Different reviewers may interpret policies differently, leading to inconsistencies across deployments. In environments with multiple teams, manual reviews do not scale efficiently and can become a bottleneck in fast-paced DevOps workflows. Furthermore, even with careful review, there is no guarantee that all deployments will meet compliance standards. Errors may still be overlooked, and human review cannot enforce policy automatically. This approach is especially problematic in continuous integration and continuous deployment environments, where frequent, automated deployments require real-time compliance checks. Relying on human review alone is insufficient for maintaining consistent governance across multiple environments or teams.

Documenting compliance standards in a shared wiki or knowledge base guides developers and administrators. Documentation can describe required configurations, security standards, naming conventions, and tagging policies. It serves as a reference point, helping teams understand what is expected when deploying resources. Documentation is valuable for knowledge sharing and training, and it can raise awareness about compliance requirements. However, documentation alone does not enforce compliance. Developers may overlook the guidelines, misinterpret instructions, or fail to follow steps accurately, leading to non-compliant deployments. As cloud environments evolve rapidly, documentation can become outdated if not continuously maintained. While documentation supports education and procedural guidance, it does not prevent policy violations, and it does not provide automatic enforcement mechanisms to ensure that all deployed resources meet standards consistently.

Applying Azure Policy integrated with pipeline workflows provides a proactive and automated approach to compliance enforcement. Azure Policy allows organizations to define rules that govern the creation and configuration of resources. These policies can enforce specific requirements, such as permitted resource types, required naming conventions, mandatory tagging, security configurations, and geographical restrictions. Policies can operate in audit mode, which identifies non-compliant resources, or in deny mode, which prevents the creation of resources that violate policies. By integrating Azure Policy with CI/CD pipelines, compliance checks become automated and occur as part of the deployment process. This ensures that only resources that adhere to organizational standards are deployed, preventing violations before they reach production. Automated enforcement eliminates the reliance on human intervention, reduces errors, and ensures consistent governance across multiple environments and teams.

The proactive nature of Azure Policy also supports scalability. As organizations grow and deploy more resources across multiple regions, environments, and teams, manually maintaining compliance becomes impractical. Policies centralize governance, enabling consistent enforcement without slowing down the development and deployment processes. Azure Policy integration provides traceability and auditability, allowing teams to track which policies were applied, which resources were evaluated, and any actions taken on non-compliant resources. This level of visibility is valuable for internal audits, regulatory compliance, and accountability. Policies can also be updated centrally to reflect changes in organizational standards, ensuring that all deployments conform to the latest requirements without requiring manual intervention or repeated education of team members.

Integrating Azure Policy with pipelines ensures that compliance is an inherent part of the deployment workflow rather than an afterthought. This approach aligns with DevOps principles by automating governance, maintaining consistent standards, and enabling rapid, reliable deployments. Monitoring with Azure Monitor, manual reviews, and documentation can support governance by providing insights, guidance, and additional verification, but they cannot guarantee proactive enforcement. Azure Policy uniquely combines automation, policy enforcement, and pipeline integration, ensuring that all deployed resources adhere to organizational standards from the outset. Policies prevent violations, enable immediate feedback during deployment, and reduce operational risk, all while supporting scalability and repeatability.

By implementing Azure Policy integrated with pipelines, organizations achieve proactive governance, consistent compliance, and reduced reliance on human intervention. This approach ensures that deployments are not only monitored for issues but are also prevented from violating standards in the first place. Teams can define policies that enforce security, operational, and organizational rules, and these policies are applied automatically every time a pipeline runs. This ensures that compliance is maintained consistently across environments, from development to production, and that any deviation from organizational standards is addressed immediately. Azure Policy integration provides a robust framework for enforcing governance, reducing risk, and supporting automated, reliable, and scalable cloud operations.

Question 122

Which practice best supports continuous deployment in Azure DevOps by enabling safe, incremental releases with automated rollback?

A) Deploy changes manually during maintenance windows
B) Use feature flags with progressive exposure
C) Schedule weekly batch deployments to production
D) Apply static configuration files for all environments

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Deploying changes manually during scheduled maintenance windows has long been a traditional approach to updating production systems, but it introduces significant operational challenges and risks. Manual deployments require engineers or administrators to perform every step by hand, from transferring code artifacts to configuring environments and executing scripts. Because each action depends on human accuracy, the process is inherently error-prone. A small misstep, such as deploying the wrong version of a service, misconfiguring environment variables, or skipping a critical validation step, can result in system outages, data inconsistencies, or degraded performance. These errors are often difficult to detect immediately and may require time-consuming corrective actions. Additionally, manual deployments are time-intensive. They typically occur during predefined maintenance windows, often outside of regular business hours, which slows the pace at which updates and new features can be delivered. This delay reduces the feedback loop from end users, making it harder for teams to understand how changes affect real-world usage and to iterate quickly. Manual deployment practices also lack incremental exposure or automated rollback mechanisms. Once a change is applied, reverting it often requires additional intervention, which increases downtime and operational risk. Consequently, manual deployment fundamentally undermines the principles of continuous deployment, which emphasize automation, speed, and the ability to deliver changes safely in small increments.

Scheduling weekly or periodic batch deployments to production introduces additional complications. This approach involves collecting multiple changes over days or weeks and deploying them together in a single release. While batching can seem like a controlled approach, it slows the delivery of updates and delays critical feedback. Large batches contain many interdependent changes, making it harder to isolate the source of problems when issues arise. If a defect is introduced in a batch, diagnosing and fixing it becomes complex, and multiple features may be affected simultaneously. This increases the likelihood that bugs or performance issues will reach end users. Continuous deployment, in contrast, relies on frequent, small releases that reduce the risk associated with any single change. Small, incremental deployments make it easier to identify and resolve problems quickly, provide faster feedback from production, and allow teams to respond to business and user needs more effectively. Relying on large, infrequent batch deployments reduces agility, delays insights from actual usage, and increases the risk of delivering defective functionality to users.

Using static configuration files across all environments is another approach aimed at achieving consistency. By defining configuration parameters in a fixed set of files and applying them uniformly across development, testing, and production, teams can reduce variability between environments. Static configurations provide repeatability, ensuring that resources are provisioned with consistent settings. However, this method is inflexible. Static configurations do not easily support progressive exposure of features or dynamic rollback in response to unexpected issues. For example, if a new feature triggers a problem in production, reverting the change may require redeploying the application with updated configuration files, which is time-consuming and prone to error. While static configurations promote uniformity and repeatability, they cannot accommodate the dynamic control required for continuous deployment. Continuous deployment emphasizes the ability to make controlled, incremental changes that can be rolled back safely if necessary, something that static configurations cannot provide effectively.

Feature flags combined with progressive exposure provide a modern and highly effective approach to continuous deployment. Feature flags allow teams to decouple the deployment of code from the release of functionality. This means that new features can be deployed to production in a disabled state, ready to be enabled selectively. Progressive exposure, sometimes called phased rollout or canary releases, enables the team to activate features for small subsets of users initially. This strategy reduces the risk associated with introducing new functionality, as potential issues affect only a limited portion of the user base. If a problem occurs, the feature can be turned off immediately by toggling the flag, without redeploying the entire application or rolling back unrelated changes. This capability provides instant rollback, reduces operational risk, and minimizes downtime. Feature flags also enable teams to gather real-time feedback from actual users in production, allowing for more informed decisions about full-scale rollout. Because features can be enabled or disabled dynamically, teams gain flexibility and control over the deployment process, supporting incremental, safe releases in alignment with continuous deployment principles.

The reasoning for choosing feature flags and progressive exposure centers on the need for automation, safety, and flexibility in modern software delivery. Manual deployments are slow, error-prone, and lack rollback capabilities, making them unsuitable for environments that demand rapid iterations. Batch releases delay feedback and increase risk by combining multiple changes into a single, complex deployment. Static configuration files ensure consistency but are rigid and cannot adapt to progressive exposure or immediate rollback needs. Feature flags address all these limitations by allowing dynamic control over features, incremental exposure to users, and instant rollback in case of problems. They support rapid feedback from production usage, improve the safety of deployments, and enable frequent releases without compromising quality. Feature flags empower teams to deploy changes continuously while maintaining control over risk and ensuring the system remains stable for end users. This approach aligns seamlessly with continuous deployment practices, providing a mechanism to deliver value quickly, safely, and flexibly.

By implementing feature flags with progressive exposure, organizations can achieve safe, incremental releases while maintaining a rapid pace of delivery. Teams can release features to a controlled subset of users, monitor performance and behavior, and make adjustments immediately if issues arise. Rollback becomes a matter of toggling a flag rather than executing a full redeployment, which minimizes downtime and operational overhead. This strategy ensures that continuous deployment can be practiced effectively, supporting both speed and safety while providing a responsive feedback loop that enables ongoing improvement and iteration in production environments.

Question 123

Which approach best enables infrastructure as code in Azure DevOps pipelines while ensuring consistency and repeatability across environments?

A) Use Azure Resource Manager templates stored in source control
B) Manually configure resources in the Azure portal
C) Apply ad‑hoc CLI commands during deployments
D) Document infrastructure setup in a shared wiki

Answer: A)

Explanation:

Manually configuring resources in the Azure portal is error‑prone and inconsistent. It relies on human effort, which can lead to misconfigurations and drift between environments. Manual processes do not scale and cannot guarantee repeatability.

Applying ad‑hoc CLI commands during deployments provides automation but lacks declarative definitions. CLI commands are imperative, describing how to perform actions rather than the desired end state. This makes it harder to maintain consistency across environments and increases the risk of drift.

Documenting infrastructure setup in a shared wiki provides guidance but does not enforce consistency. Developers must manually follow instructions, which can lead to errors and inconsistencies. Documentation is useful for knowledge sharing but not for automation or enforcement.

Using Azure Resource Manager templates stored in source control is the correct approach. ARM templates define infrastructure declaratively, specifying the desired state of resources. Pipelines can deploy templates automatically, ensuring consistency and repeatability across environments. Templates support parameterization, enabling customization for different scenarios while maintaining a common structure. They also integrate with source control, allowing versioning and auditing of infrastructure changes.

The reasoning for selecting ARM templates is that infrastructure as code requires declarative, automated definitions of resources. ARM templates provide consistency, repeatability, and scalability, aligning with DevOps principles. Other methods either rely on manual effort or lack declarative definitions, making ARM templates the best choice.

Question 124

Which solution best enforces automated compliance in Azure DevOps pipelines by preventing non‑compliant resources from being deployed?

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Azure Monitor alerts play a significant role in providing visibility into the operational state of resources within an Azure environment. These alerts enable teams to track key metrics and collect logs, helping to detect anomalies, misconfigurations, or policy violations after resources have been deployed. Alerts can notify administrators of various issues, such as excessive CPU usage, unencrypted storage accounts, unauthorized access attempts, or resources deployed in disallowed regions. By providing this level of observability, Azure Monitor alerts help organizations maintain operational awareness and respond to issues quickly. However, despite their usefulness in identifying problems, alerts are fundamentally reactive. They detect issues only after the resources exist and have potentially violated organizational standards or security policies. Reactive detection does not prevent the initial creation of non-compliant resources, meaning that the environment may already be in an undesired or non-compliant state before the alert triggers. Organizations that rely exclusively on monitoring cannot fully enforce compliance proactively, leaving a window of risk where misconfigurations or violations may impact operations, security, or governance objectives. Proactive compliance enforcement requires mechanisms that prevent non-compliant resources from being created at all, ensuring adherence to standards from the outset.

Manual reviews before each deployment are another approach that some teams use to ensure compliance. In this method, administrators, compliance officers, or developers examine proposed changes prior to release to confirm that resources and configurations conform to organizational policies. Manual review processes can involve checking resource types, ensuring naming conventions are followed, validating tagging policies, and confirming that security and operational configurations meet standards. While these reviews may catch some issues, they are slow, labor-intensive, and highly dependent on human accuracy. The risk of human error is significant; reviewers might overlook subtle deviations, misinterpret requirements, or inconsistently apply standards across different environments. In organizations with multiple teams or geographically distributed operations, scaling manual reviews becomes increasingly challenging. Even when thorough reviews are conducted, there is no guarantee that all deployments will fully comply with established policies. In fast-moving DevOps environments where continuous integration and continuous deployment are essential, relying on human review alone cannot provide the speed or consistency required to maintain compliance across multiple pipelines and environments.

Documenting compliance standards in a shared wiki or knowledge base provides guidance and reference material for developers and operational teams. Documentation can include detailed instructions on required configurations, tagging policies, naming conventions, and security practices. It serves as an educational tool and helps ensure that teams understand organizational expectations. Documentation also helps onboard new team members and supports consistency by providing a central reference point for deployment practices. However, while documentation raises awareness, it does not actively enforce compliance. Developers or administrators may overlook guidance, misinterpret instructions, or fail to apply policies consistently. Additionally, documentation can quickly become outdated as cloud services evolve and organizational standards change, which may further reduce its effectiveness. While useful as a reference and support mechanism, documentation alone cannot guarantee that all deployed resources meet compliance standards or prevent violations from occurring in real time.

Applying Azure Policy integrated with pipeline workflows provides a proactive and automated solution for enforcing compliance in cloud environments. Azure Policy allows organizations to define rules that govern the creation and configuration of resources. These rules can enforce a wide range of requirements, including permitted resource types, required naming conventions, mandatory tagging, security configurations, location restrictions, and other operational policies. Policies can operate in audit mode, which evaluates existing resources and reports non-compliance, or in deny mode, which prevents the creation of resources that violate policy. Integrating Azure Policy with deployment pipelines ensures that compliance checks occur automatically as part of the CI/CD process. This integration means that only resources that meet organizational standards are deployed, preventing violations from entering production environments. Automated enforcement eliminates the reliance on human intervention, reduces errors, and ensures that compliance is applied consistently across multiple teams and environments. Policies can also be parameterized and centrally managed, allowing updates to be applied uniformly across all pipelines without requiring manual intervention or repeated documentation updates.

The proactive nature of Azure Policy supports scalability and governance. As organizations expand and deploy resources across multiple regions, subscriptions, or teams, maintaining compliance through manual review or documentation alone becomes impractical. Policies centralize compliance enforcement, allowing teams to scale deployments while ensuring that all resources meet organizational standards. Azure Policy provides visibility and traceability, allowing teams to monitor which policies were applied, which resources were evaluated, and what actions were taken for non-compliant resources. This level of accountability is critical for audits, regulatory compliance, and maintaining operational integrity. By defining and enforcing policies centrally, organizations can ensure that deployments are consistent, secure, and aligned with both internal standards and external regulatory requirements.

Integrating Azure Policy with pipelines ensures that compliance becomes an intrinsic part of the deployment workflow rather than an afterthought. Monitoring with Azure Monitor alerts, manual reviews, and documentation can support governance by providing visibility, guidance, and verification. However, none of these mechanisms can proactively prevent non-compliant resources from being deployed. Azure Policy uniquely combines automation, enforcement, and integration with modern DevOps practices, ensuring that pipelines only deploy resources that comply with organizational standards. This reduces operational risk, supports repeatable and auditable deployments, and maintains consistency across multiple environments. Automated enforcement with Azure Policy allows teams to focus on delivering features while maintaining strong governance, ensuring that deployments are both safe and compliant.

By adopting Azure Policy integrated with pipeline workflows, organizations achieve proactive compliance, consistent enforcement, and reduced reliance on manual processes. Policies prevent violations before they occur, provide automated enforcement across environments, and allow organizations to scale operations without sacrificing governance. Teams can define and update policies centrally, ensuring that all deployments comply with corporate and regulatory standards. This approach creates a robust, automated framework for compliance that is tightly integrated with deployment pipelines, enabling secure, reliable, and scalable cloud operations.

Question 125

Which practice best supports continuous deployment in Azure DevOps by enabling safe, incremental releases with automated rollback?

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Deploying changes manually during designated maintenance windows has historically been a common practice for many organizations seeking to update production systems while minimizing perceived risks. However, this approach introduces significant delays and operational challenges. Manual deployments require hands-on intervention by engineers or administrators, which makes them inherently error-prone. Even small mistakes, such as misconfiguring a deployment script, uploading the wrong artifact, or skipping a critical step, can result in system outages, degraded performance, or even data corruption. In addition to being error-prone, manual deployments are time-consuming. Each deployment must be carefully planned and executed during a maintenance window, which often occurs outside normal working hours. This scheduling limitation slows down the delivery of new features and bug fixes, delaying the feedback loop from end-users and reducing the ability to respond rapidly to changing business requirements or customer needs. Moreover, manual deployment processes do not provide mechanisms for incremental exposure or immediate rollback. Once changes are deployed, correcting errors often requires additional manual interventions, which further increases risk and extends downtime. These factors make manual deployment fundamentally incompatible with the principles of continuous deployment, which prioritize automation, speed, and reliability in delivering software updates.

Scheduling weekly or periodic batch deployments to production introduces additional challenges. In this approach, multiple changes are bundled together and deployed in a single release, often at predetermined intervals such as weekly or biweekly. While batching changes may seem like a controlled approach, it delays the delivery of individual updates, making feedback slower and less actionable. Large batches can contain dozens or even hundreds of changes, which increases the complexity of the deployment process. When issues arise, it becomes much harder to identify which specific change caused the problem, complicating troubleshooting and remediation. The increased complexity also amplifies the likelihood of defects reaching end-users, as testing and validation for large releases may not catch every issue. Continuous deployment, in contrast, emphasizes the delivery of small, incremental updates that can be deployed frequently. Small, frequent releases reduce the blast radius of potential defects, allow for quicker detection and resolution of issues, and improve overall agility. By relying on large, infrequent batch releases, organizations sacrifice the speed, safety, and responsiveness that continuous deployment aims to provide.

Applying static configuration files across all environments is another method some teams use to ensure consistency in deployments. By defining configuration values in files that are applied uniformly across development, testing, and production environments, teams can reduce inconsistencies and guarantee that the deployed software behaves similarly in each context. While static configurations provide repeatability, they also introduce limitations. They are inflexible and do not easily support the dynamic changes required for progressive exposure of features or immediate rollback of problematic functionality. For example, if a new feature causes an error in production, a static configuration approach may require a redeployment of the entire application or extensive manual adjustments, which is time-consuming and risky. Static configurations ensure consistency but fall short of enabling the dynamic, controlled deployment strategies that continuous deployment requires. Continuous deployment relies not only on repeatability but also on the ability to modify behavior dynamically, deploy changes gradually, and respond immediately to issues without interrupting service for end-users.

Using feature flags in combination with progressive exposure represents the most effective and modern approach for managing continuous deployment in a safe and controlled manner. Feature flags allow teams to decouple deployment from feature release. This means that new functionality can be deployed to production in a disabled state and gradually enabled for a subset of users or environments. Progressive exposure, also known as gradual rollout or canary releases, enables teams to monitor the behavior of new features with limited user exposure, reducing the impact of potential defects. If a problem is detected, the feature can be instantly disabled by toggling the flag, without requiring a new deployment or rollback of the entire application. This capability dramatically reduces risk and improves operational agility. Feature flags also provide rapid feedback from real users in production, which is invaluable for validating new functionality and making adjustments based on actual usage patterns. In addition, they support automated rollback processes, aligning closely with continuous deployment principles that emphasize speed, safety, and automation. Feature flags give teams dynamic control over software behavior, enabling incremental releases and targeted testing in live environments.

The reasoning for adopting feature flags and progressive exposure as a deployment strategy is grounded in the need for automation, safety, and flexibility. Manual deployments, weekly batch releases, and static configuration files all fail to provide the level of control and responsiveness required for continuous deployment. Manual deployments are slow, error-prone, and lack mechanisms for incremental exposure or immediate rollback. Batch releases increase the risk of widespread defects and delay feedback from end-users, limiting the ability to iterate rapidly. Static configurations ensure consistency but cannot dynamically adjust to changing requirements or enable safe progressive rollouts. Feature flags address all these limitations by allowing teams to release functionality gradually, test changes with subsets of users, and immediately disable features if issues arise. This approach supports frequent, controlled releases that improve both software quality and operational efficiency. It also aligns perfectly with modern DevOps practices, enabling teams to deliver value continuously while minimizing risk and maintaining flexibility.

By implementing feature flags and progressive exposure, organizations can achieve the goals of continuous deployment: rapid delivery of value, safe experimentation, and automated risk management. Features can be released incrementally, feedback can be obtained from actual usage, and rollbacks can be performed instantly, all without requiring additional deployment cycles or extensive manual intervention. This strategy ensures that deployments remain safe, controlled, and predictable, even as teams scale and release software more frequently.

Question 126

Which approach best enables infrastructure as code in Azure DevOps pipelines while ensuring consistency and repeatability across environments?

Answer: A)

Explanation:

Question 127

Which solution best enforces automated compliance in Azure DevOps pipelines by preventing non‑compliant resources from being deployed?

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Azure Monitor alerts provide observability into metrics and logs, enabling detection of anomalies and violations after resources are deployed. This is reactive, not preventative.

Manual reviews before each release rely on human effort, which is slow, error‑prone, and inconsistent. They cannot scale across multiple teams or environments.

Documenting compliance standards in a shared wiki helps raise awareness, but does not enforce compliance. Developers may overlook documentation or interpret standards differently.

Applying Azure Policy integrated with pipeline workflows is the correct solution. Azure Policy enforces compliance by auditing and denying non‑compliant configurations. When integrated with pipelines, it ensures deployments adhere to organizational standards automatically. This proactive enforcement prevents violations before they reach production.

Question 128

Which practice best supports continuous deployment in Azure DevOps by enabling safe, incremental releases with automated rollback?

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Manual deployments during maintenance windows are error‑prone and lack automation. They do not provide incremental exposure or rollback capabilities.

Weekly batch deployments delay feedback and increase risk. Large batches make it harder to identify and fix issues, reducing agility.

Static configuration files ensure consistency but lack flexibility. They cannot adapt to progressive exposure or rollback.

Feature flags with progressive exposure are the correct practice. They allow teams to enable or disable functionality at runtime without redeploying code. Progressive exposure gradually releases features to subsets of users, reducing risk. If issues occur, features can be rolled back instantly by toggling flags. This supports safe, incremental releases, rapid feedback, and automated rollback.

Question 129

Which approach best enables infrastructure as code in Azure DevOps pipelines while ensuring consistency and repeatability across environments?

Answer: A)

Explanation:

Manual configuration in the Azure portal is error‑prone and inconsistent. It cannot guarantee repeatability.

Ad‑hoc CLI commands provide automation but lack declarative definitions. They make it harder to maintain consistency across environments.

Documentation in a wiki provides guidance but does not enforce consistency. Developers may misinterpret or skip steps.

Azure Resource Manager templates stored in source control are the correct approach. ARM templates define infrastructure declaratively, specifying the desired state of resources. Pipelines can deploy templates automatically, ensuring consistency and repeatability across environments. Templates support parameterization, customization, and versioning, aligning with DevOps principles.

Question 130

Which solution best enforces automated compliance in Azure DevOps pipelines by preventing non‑compliant resources from being deployed?

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Azure Monitor alerts provide observability into metrics and logs, enabling detection of anomalies and violations after resources are deployed. This is reactive, not preventative.

Manual reviews before each release rely on human effort, which is slow, error‑prone, and inconsistent. They cannot scale across multiple teams or environments.

Documenting compliance standards in a shared wiki helps raise awareness, but does not enforce compliance. Developers may overlook documentation or interpret standards differently.

Question 131

Which practice best supports continuous deployment in Azure DevOps by enabling safe, incremental releases with automated rollback?

Answer: B)

Explanation:

Manual deployments during maintenance windows are error‑prone and lack automation. They do not provide incremental exposure or rollback capabilities.

Weekly batch deployments delay feedback and increase risk. Large batches make it harder to identify and fix issues, reducing agility.

Static configuration files ensure consistency but lack flexibility. They cannot adapt to progressive exposure or rollback.

Question 132

Which approach best enables infrastructure as code in Azure DevOps pipelines while ensuring consistency and repeatability across environments?

Answer: A)

Explanation:

Manual configuration of resources in the Azure portal is a method that many organizations initially adopt when they begin working with cloud environments. It allows administrators and developers to create and manage virtual machines, storage accounts, networking components, and other services directly through the graphical interface. While this approach can be intuitive and convenient for small-scale or experimental deployments, it carries significant risks when applied to production-level infrastructure. One of the primary challenges of manual configuration is that it is highly error-prone. Every click, every selection, and every configuration input relies on human accuracy. A small oversight, such as selecting the wrong virtual machine size, misconfiguring a network security group, or failing to apply the correct tags, can lead to misconfigurations that affect performance, security, or compliance. These errors are often subtle and may not be immediately obvious, which means they can persist in the environment and cause problems later on.

In addition to being error-prone, manual configuration is inherently inconsistent. When multiple administrators or developers are responsible for setting up similar environments, variations in choices, interpretations, and sequences of actions inevitably arise. For example, one developer might create a virtual network with a particular naming convention, while another uses a slightly different format. Similarly, resource groups might be organized differently depending on who performs the deployment. These inconsistencies make it difficult to maintain a standard structure across multiple environments, such as development, testing, staging, and production. Moreover, manual processes cannot guarantee repeatability. If an organization needs to replicate an environment for testing, scaling, or disaster recovery, the exact steps used in the original deployment must be manually retraced. Even with detailed instructions, there is no assurance that the resulting infrastructure will be identical to the original, because human actions vary and mistakes can occur at each step. As a result, manual configuration is unsuitable for organizations seeking predictable, scalable, and auditable deployments.

Applying ad-hoc command-line interface commands represents a step toward automation, but it introduces its own set of challenges. CLI commands can speed up deployments and reduce repetitive effort compared to manual portal interactions. They allow scripts to be executed for creating resources, configuring settings, or applying updates. While this approach provides a degree of automation, it is imperative rather than declarative. This means that CLI commands specify the exact sequence of actions to be performed rather than defining the desired final state of the infrastructure. For example, a CLI script may create a storage account, configure network rules, and assign roles, but it does not inherently describe the intended characteristics of the overall environment. If a deployment fails partway or a new environment is created at a later date, ensuring that the resulting resources exactly match the intended state can be challenging. Maintaining consistency across multiple environments becomes complex, particularly as scripts grow in length and complexity. Imperative approaches like CLI commands also make auditing and versioning more difficult because the focus is on execution steps rather than the infrastructure itself. Although CLI automation reduces some manual work, it does not fully solve the problem of repeatability and consistency, leaving room for drift and discrepancies.

Documentation in a shared wiki or knowledge base provides another layer of support for teams managing cloud infrastructure. A wiki can contain instructions, diagrams, guidelines, and best practices for deploying resources. It serves as a reference point for developers, helping them understand organizational standards, compliance requirements, and recommended configurations. While documentation is useful for raising awareness and guiding team members, it does not enforce compliance or consistency. Developers may misinterpret instructions, skip steps unintentionally, or apply practices inconsistently. Over time, documentation can become outdated as cloud services evolve, and keeping it synchronized with the actual infrastructure requires continuous effort. Therefore, while documentation supports education and knowledge sharing, it cannot replace automated enforcement or guarantee that all deployed resources adhere to standards.

Azure Resource Manager (ARM) templates stored in source control provide a superior solution to the challenges of manual configuration, ad-hoc CLI commands, and documentation-only approaches. ARM templates allow infrastructure to be defined declaratively, specifying the desired state of all resources. This declarative approach ensures that the deployment process focuses on the final configuration rather than the sequence of steps required to create it. When deployed, the Azure platform automatically provisions resources to match the defined state, including dependencies, configurations, and relationships between components. This ensures consistency across environments, whether development, testing, or production. Storing ARM templates in source control adds further benefits. Changes to the templates are versioned, allowing teams to track modifications, review updates, and roll back to previous configurations if needed. This integration supports collaborative workflows and provides auditability, enabling organizations to maintain a clear history of infrastructure changes.

Pipelines can be used to deploy ARM templates automatically, integrating infrastructure as code into continuous integration and continuous deployment workflows. Automation via pipelines guarantees that resources are provisioned consistently, reduces the risk of human error, and enables rapid scaling across multiple environments. ARM templates also support parameterization, allowing customization of deployments without changing the core template structure. For example, different sizes of virtual machines, storage configurations, or regions can be specified at deployment time, ensuring flexibility while maintaining a standard architecture. This approach aligns with DevOps principles by emphasizing repeatability, traceability, and collaboration. By combining declarative templates, source control, and automated pipelines, organizations can achieve reliable, scalable, and maintainable infrastructure deployments that are far more resilient and predictable than manual or ad-hoc methods.

In addition to consistency and repeatability, ARM templates help enforce organizational standards. Templates can incorporate naming conventions, required tags, and configuration baselines, ensuring that all deployments conform to policies. This reduces the risk of drift and simplifies management of complex environments. Teams can also use templates to quickly replicate environments for testing, training, or disaster recovery, with confidence that the resulting infrastructure matches the intended design. The use of ARM templates also supports auditing and compliance efforts because each change is tracked and reviewed in source control, creating transparency and accountability.

Question 133

Which solution best enforces automated compliance in Azure DevOps pipelines by preventing non‑compliant resources from being deployed?

Answer: B)

Explanation

The first choice provides monitoring and alerting capabilities. It detects violations after deployment, making it reactive rather than preventative. By the time alerts are triggered, non-compliant resources may already exist, exposing the system to risks.

The second choice enforces compliance rules at deployment time. Policies can require tags, enforce naming conventions, restrict resource types, or mandate encryption. Integrated with pipelines, they act as gatekeepers, ensuring only compliant configurations are deployed. This proactive enforcement prevents violations before they reach production.

The third choice relies on human reviews before releases. This approach is slow, error-prone, and inconsistent. It cannot scale across multiple teams or environments and introduces delays in the deployment process.

The fourth choice documents standards in a wiki. While helpful for awareness, documentation does not enforce compliance. Developers may overlook or misinterpret guidelines, leading to inconsistent adherence.

The reasoning for selecting the second choice is that it provides automated, proactive compliance enforcement. It ensures governance is consistent and scalable, aligning with DevOps principles of automation and reliability.

Question 134

Which practice best supports continuous deployment in Azure DevOps by enabling safe, incremental releases with automated rollback?

Answer: B)

Explanation

The first choice involves manual deployments during maintenance windows. This approach is slow, error-prone, and lacks automation. It does not support incremental releases or automated rollback, making it unsuitable for continuous deployment.

The second choice allows teams to enable or disable functionality at runtime without redeploying code. Progressive exposure means rolling out features gradually to subsets of users, reducing risk. If issues occur, rollback is instant by toggling the flag. This supports safe, incremental releases, rapid feedback, and automated rollback.

The third choice schedules weekly batch deployments. This delays feedback and increases risk by bundling many changes together. Large batches make it harder to identify and fix issues, reducing agility and responsiveness.

The fourth choice applies to static configuration files. While they ensure consistency, they lack flexibility for progressive exposure or rollback. They cannot adapt dynamically to issues during deployment.

The reasoning for selecting the second choice is that it provides dynamic control, safe incremental releases, and instant rollback. It aligns with continuous deployment principles by enabling frequent, controlled deployments and reducing risk.

Question 135

Which TOGAF ADM phase is primarily responsible for defining the baseline and target architecture across all domains?

A) Preliminary Phase
B) Architecture Vision
C) Architecture Definition
D) Opportunities and Solutions

Answer: C)

Explanation

The first choice describes the initial preparation work that organizations undertake before starting the cycle. This involves establishing the architecture capability, defining principles, and preparing governance structures. While this is important groundwork, it does not directly define baseline and target architectures across domains. It is more about readiness and setting up the environment for architecture work.

The second choice focuses on creating a high-level view of the desired future state and securing stakeholder buy-in. It is about articulating the business case, scope, and vision for the architecture project. This phase provides direction and ensures alignment with business goals, but it does not go into the detailed definition of baseline and target architectures.

The third choice is where the detailed work of defining baseline and target architectures occurs. This phase covers business, data, application, and technology domains. Architects analyze the current state, identify gaps, and design the target state. It is comprehensive and ensures that all domains are addressed systematically. This phase is central to the ADM cycle because it provides the detailed architecture that guides subsequent implementation.

The fourth choice focuses on identifying potential solutions and planning the transition from baseline to target. It is about practical implementation planning, considering opportunities, and defining projects. While it is critical for moving forward, it relies on the detailed definitions created earlier. It does not itself define baseline and target architectures but rather uses them to plan solutions.

The reasoning for selecting the third choice is that it is the only phase dedicated to detailed definition across all domains. The other phases are to prepare, or planning. The third choice ensures that the architecture is fully articulated, providing the foundation for implementation and governance.

The Open Group OGEA-103 TOGAF Enterprise Architecture Combined Part 1 and Part 2 Exam Dumps and Practice Test Questions Set 9 Q121-135

Related posts: