Explanation:

When creating Sharing Rules in Salesforce, you can share records with Roles, Public Groups, Roles and Subordinates, or Territories. You cannot share directly with Users or Profiles via sharing rules. This question tests your knowledge of sharing rule targets — and Roles is a correct and valid option. This allows scalable sharing across organizational hierarchies without listing individual users.

Explanation:

Sharing sets are specifically designed for community licensing scenarios where external users need access to records associated with their account. Option A (Apex sharing) would require custom development for a native feature. Option B (sharing rules) doesn't properly address the account-based relationship needed. Sharing sets automatically grant access based on account relationships, which is exactly what's required when students need cases related to their account. Benefits include: 1) Automatic maintenance as relationships change 2) No code required 3) Alignment with community licensing best practices 4) Scalable across many students and cases. The sharing set can define precisely which case records should be shared based on account relationships, maintaining security while providing necessary access. This native functionality is more sustainable than custom code solutions and properly leverages the community licensing framework. As student-account relationships change, access automatically updates without administrative intervention, making sharing sets the most efficient and maintainable solution.

Explanation:

For adding new fields to Platform Shield Encryption, Option C is correct. The proper process is to use Encryption Policy to select the new fields (Billing Street, Billing City, and Phone) and then contact Salesforce to encrypt existing records, as historical data isn't automatically encrypted. Option A is incorrect because Classic Encryption is deprecated and shouldn't be mixed with Platform Encryption. Option B is incomplete because while Encryption Policy defines what to encrypt, it doesn't address existing data encryption without Salesforce assistance. Platform Encryption requires a specific implementation process: 1) Define encryption policy for new fields, 2) Deploy changes, 3) Contact Salesforce Support to encrypt existing records, as this operation requires backend processing. This approach maintains consistency with the existing encryption implementation while expanding protection to the newly identified sensitive fields. It also ensures compliance with the audit requirements by properly securing all historical data in the newly identified fields, not just future entries. The solution follows Salesforce best practices for encryption expansion projects.

Explanation:

When leveraging Apex Managed Sharing, it’s critical to test that the correct users get or don’t get access. The System.runAs() method allows you to execute test code under the context of different users (with varying roles, profiles, and sharing). By writing tests that runAs(distributorUser) or runAs(salesManager), you can assert that sharing entries created by your Apex logic yield the expected visibility.

→ with sharing or isShareable (A, C) control runtime sharing behavior but don’t verify it.
→ Only runAs lets you simulate and validate access in unit tests, giving confidence that your managed sharing rules won’t over-expose or under-expose records.

Explanation:

Partner Community licenses restrict partner user role hierarchies to a maximum of three levels beneath the Channel Manager role. UC’s affiliate has four levels (VP → Director → Manager → Rep), but only three can be represented. The architect must address this structural mismatch, either by consolidating levels (e.g., combining Director and Manager) or by using Sharing Sets/Security Groups for finer control.

→ It’s not that the Channel Manager role can’t be shared (A), nor that Partner Communities lack hierarchy entirely (C).
→ The core limitation is the three-level cap, which directly prevents modeling the full affiliate structure in the partner role hierarchy.