Explanation:

When working with Salesforce Extensions for VS Code, you do not have to deploy the entire force-app directory to see your changes. The CLI is "context-aware" based on where you trigger the command:

Deploying from the Folder (A): Right-clicking the component folder (e.g., myCustomComponent) and selecting Deploy Source to Org will bundle and deploy only the files within that specific folder (the HTML, JS, CSS, and Meta-XML). This is significantly faster than a full project deployment.

Deploying from the File (C): If you only modified the CSS, you can right-click that specific file (e.g., myCustomComponent.css) and select Deploy Source to Org. The Salesforce CLI is smart enough to understand that this file belongs to a specific component and will update only that asset in the target org.

Why other options are incorrect:

B: Deploy Single File → While this describes the action being taken, "Deploy Single File" is not the literal text of the command in the standard Salesforce Extension Pack. The command is always labeled "SFDX: Deploy Source to Org" regardless of whether you select a file or a folder.

D: Deploy styles → There is no "Tools" menu or "Deploy styles" command in the standard Salesforce VS Code integration.

E: Deploy the entire project → This contradicts the user's requirement to avoid "time consuming" deployments. While it is true that Salesforce's Source Tracking (in Scratch Orgs) only uploads changes, in a standard Sandbox or Developer Edition, a full project deploy command will still validate and process the entire manifest, which takes much longer.

Pro-tip: You can also use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+Shift+P (Windows) or Cmd+Shift+P (Mac) and type "SFDX: Deploy This Source to Org" while the CSS file is open in your editor.

Explanation:

In Salesforce B2B Commerce, products must be explicitly associated with a storefront to be visible and available for purchase. Even after products are successfully imported into Salesforce, they will not appear in the storefront until they are assigned to the specific storefront where they should be sold.

The storefront assignment links products to:
* The appropriate product catalog for that storefront
* The correct price books and inventory settings
* The specific buying experiences and buyer groups

Without this assignment, products exist in the system but remain invisible to shoppers browsing the storefront.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A: Entitlement policies control what users can purchase or access but are not required for basic product visibility in the store.

C: While products may need to be associated with accounts for specific B2B scenarios (like contract pricing), this is not a prerequisite for basic storefront visibility.

D: Promotions are marketing tools that can be applied to products but are not required for products to appear in the store.

Reference:
Salesforce B2B Commerce Implementation Guide: Add Products to a Storefront

Explanation:

When delivering a taxation solution for multiple countries and complex jurisdictions in Salesforce B2B Commerce, developers should consider:

A. Contact the vendor (third-party tax service):
Tax rules change frequently across countries and jurisdictions. Staying aligned with the vendor ensures compliance and accuracy.

C. Implement sfdc_checkout.CartTaxCalculations with a third-party service:
This is the recommended approach. Instead of writing tax logic from scratch, you extend the provided interface and integrate with a tax engine (e.g., Avalara, Vertex). This ensures scalability and compliance.

E. Look for AppExchange packages or sample code:
Salesforce AppExchange often has prebuilt connectors or sample implementations for tax services. Leveraging these accelerates development and reduces risk.

❌ Why the other options are incorrect:

B. Implement sfdc_checkout.CartTaxCalculations writing code from scratch
→ Not practical for complex, multi-country tax rules. Reinventing tax logic is error-prone and hard to maintain.

D. Implement sfdc_checkout.TaxCalculations interface
→ Misleading; the correct interface for cart-level tax integration is CartTaxCalculations.

📚 Reference:
Salesforce B2B Commerce Developer Guide:
“For complex tax scenarios, extend the sfdc_checkout.CartTaxCalculations interface and integrate with a third-party tax service. Consider vendor guidance and available AppExchange packages.”

Explanation:

In Salesforce B2B Commerce (particularly in the Visualforce/Aura-based storefronts tested in the B2B-Commerce-Developer exam), when custom Salesforce fields (e.g., My_Fiels_Name__c on Product2, Account, or other commerce-related objects) are retrieved via Global APIs, ccrz.ccService classes, JSON serialization, or client-side Backbone models, the field names are automatically transformed for consistency in the commerce data model.

The transformation:
* Removes the __c suffix
* Converts the name to lower camelCase (first letter lowercase, subsequent words capitalized, no underscores)

For My_Fiels_Name__c:
* Remove __c → My_Fiels_Name
* Convert underscores to camelCase → myFielsName (note: the question has a typo "Fiels" likely meaning "Fields", so myFieldName)

This is the default behavior in B2B Commerce's data transformation layer (e.g., via internal utilities like ccJSONUtil or Global API responses) to align with JavaScript conventions (camelCase is standard in JS/Backbone for property names).

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. MyFieldName
→ Upper/PascalCase (first letter capitalized). B2B Commerce uses lower camelCase by default for transformed fields.

C. myfieldname
→ All lowercase. Not the default — B2B Commerce preserves camel casing for readability.

D. My_Field_Name__c
→ Original Salesforce API name (unchanged). B2B Commerce transforms it — it does not keep the __c or underscores in client/API responses.

References:
* B2B Commerce Developer Guide — Global API / Data Transformation sections: Describes default field name mapping to lower camelCase (removes __c, converts snake_case to camelCase)

Explanation:

Salesforce B2B Commerce provides its own remote invocation framework instead of relying solely on standard Salesforce Remote Actions because Commerce requires additional storefront context and platform integrations.

Extending the B2B Commerce remote invocation object ensures that Commerce-specific services and infrastructure are available.

✅ B. Apex receives a Salesforce B2B Commerce context object
Correct
Commerce remote invocation automatically injects the Commerce call context (cc_CallContext).
This provides access to:
* Storefront
* Session
* Cart
* User context
* Localization
Standard Remote Actions do not automatically include this Commerce runtime context.

✅ D. The Salesforce B2B Commerce logger cannot be utilized in standard remote actions
Correct
Commerce logging integrates with platform diagnostics and monitoring.
The Commerce logger works within the Commerce invocation framework.
Standard Remote Actions bypass this infrastructure.

❌ Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

❌ A. A standard remote action will not have access to Salesforce B2B Commerce objects
Incorrect
Apex can still query Commerce objects normally. The limitation is context and framework integration, not object access.

❌ C. Salesforce B2B Commerce includes do not support standard Salesforce remote actions
Incorrect
Standard Remote Actions are technically supported. They are just not preferred because they lack Commerce-specific capabilities.

📘 Salesforce Concept Reference:
* B2B Commerce server architecture
* Commerce Remote Invocation Framework
* cc_CallContext
* Commerce logging & diagnostics
* Subscriber-safe extensions