Explanation:

A. VS Code ✅
Visual Studio Code (with Salesforce Extensions) can run Salesforce CLI commands and scripts.
You can create deployment scripts (using package.xml, metadata API, etc.) and execute them from VS Code’s terminal.
✅ Correct.

B. Change Sets ❌
Change Sets are a point-and-click tool in the Salesforce UI.
They cannot be scripted or automated — they’re manual.
❌ Incorrect.

C. SFDX CLI ✅
The Salesforce CLI (sfdx) is specifically designed for automation.
You can script deployments using commands like:
sfdx force:source:deploy -u MySandbox -p force-app/main/default
✅ Correct.

D. Developer Console ❌
The Developer Console is mainly for running queries, executing anonymous Apex, and debugging logs.
It has nothing to do with scripted deployments.
❌ Incorrect.

✅ Correct Answers:
A. VS Code
C. SFDX CLI

Reference:
Salesforce CLI Command Reference
Salesforce Extensions for VS Code

Explanation:

A trace flag in Salesforce is used to enable debug logging for specific items. Here’s how the correct answers apply:

✔️ C. Apex Class

✅ True
You can set a trace flag for a specific Apex Class to debug its behavior and execution.

✔️ D. Apex Trigger

✅ True
You can enable a trace flag on a specific Apex Trigger to log its execution.

✔️ E. User

✅ True
This is the most common use — enabling a trace flag for a user captures all code run in their context (e.g., when testing something in the UI or running a flow).

❌ Incorrect Options:

A. Process Builder
❌ False
You cannot configure trace flags directly for Process Builder. However, if it triggers Apex code, that can be traced.

B. Visualforce
❌ False
You cannot directly set a trace flag for a Visualforce page. You would trace the user or Apex class involved.

Explanation:

Why Option B?
In Lightning Web Components (LWC), the @wire decorator is used to call an Apex method reactively. The correct syntax to wire an Apex method with parameters is:

@wire(getAccounts, { searchTerm: '$searchTerm' }) accountList;

Key Details:
@wire Decorator:


Links the Apex method (getAccounts) to the LWC property (accountList).
Automatically refreshes when searchTerm changes (due to '$searchTerm' reactivity).
Parameter Passing:

Parameters are passed as an object (e.g., { searchTerm: '$searchTerm' }).
The $ prefix denotes a reactive property (updates when searchTerm changes).

Why Not the Other Options?

A/C: Use @AuraEnabled, which is invalid in LWC for wiring Apex methods (used in Aura, not LWC).
D: Incorrectly passes '$searchTerm' directly instead of an object with named parameters.

Explanation:

When dealing with a junction object, sharing can be a bit tricky because the junction object's sharing behavior depends on its master-detail relationships.

Here's a breakdown of how sharing typically works with junction objects:

Junction Object Sharing: The sharing of a junction object record (like Case_Defect__c) is often controlled by the sharing settings of its master records. If the junction object has two master-detail relationships, its sharing settings usually inherit from one of the master records. If both are master-detail, the sharing settings of the junction object are driven by the more restrictive of the two parent objects (or explicitly configured).

Access to Junction Records: To gain access to a specific Case_Defect__c record, a user generally needs read/write access to both of its parent master records (Case and Defect__c). If a user can see one parent but not the other, they typically won't be able to see the junction record.

Let's evaluate the options:

A. Share the Case_Defect_c record.

While you can share the junction object record directly if it's in a lookup relationship, or if sharing settings allow, in a master-detail relationship scenario (which is typical for junction objects), its sharing is often derived from the parents. Directly sharing the junction object might not be sufficient if the user doesn't have access to the associated master records.

B. Share the parent Case record.

This is necessary, but not sufficient on its own. If the user only has access to the Case but not the Defect__c record, they won't see the junction object.

C. Share the parent Defect_c record.

This is also necessary, but not sufficient on its own. If the user only has access to the Defect__c but not the Case record, they won't see the junction object.

D. Share the parent Case and Defect_c records.

This is the most robust and generally correct approach. For a user to access a specific junction object record (Case_Defect__c), they must have access to both of the parent records it links (Case and Defect__c). Salesforce's security model ensures that if a user cannot see one of the master records, they cannot see the detail (junction) record linked to it. By sharing both parent records, you ensure the user has the foundational access required for the junction object.

Explanation:

The code attempts to insert 500 Account records using a for loop:

for (Integer i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
Account a = new Account(Name = 'New Account ' + i);
insert a;
}

However, this code violates Apex governor limits.

Salesforce has a governor limit of:

150 DML statements per transaction

This code executes 500 DML statements (1 insert per iteration), which exceeds the limit, causing a System.LimitException to be thrown, and the transaction fails.

As a result, no records are inserted, and the transaction is rolled back.

Best Practice (Fix):

To stay within limits, bulkify the DML operation like this:

List accounts = new List();
for (Integer i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
accounts.add(new Account(Name = 'New Account ' + i));
}
insert accounts;

This uses 1 DML statement instead of 500.