Microsoft PL-400 Exam Dumps & Practice Test Questions
Question 1
A business is developing a data integration solution that involves linking Microsoft Dataverse with an external system. Rather than duplicating or storing external data in Dataverse tables, the company aims to visualize and interact with this external data using virtual tables in real time.
Requirement:
You are responsible for setting up virtual tables so users can interact with the external data as if it were stored locally, but without persisting that data inside Dataverse.
Proposed Approach:
A virtual table is created with a column configured to use a globally unique identifier (GUID) as its primary key. The external source also uses a corresponding unique identifier for records.
Is using a GUID as the primary key an appropriate solution for implementing virtual tables in this scenario?
A. Absolutely, it satisfies the technical requirements
B. No, this setup does not fulfill the virtual table implementation needs
Answer: B
Explanation:
In the context of Microsoft Dataverse, virtual tables allow external data to be integrated and accessed as though it were stored natively in Dataverse. However, GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) as a primary key does not automatically fulfill the requirements of a virtual table integration for several reasons.
Why a GUID might not work in this case:
Virtual Tables and Key Mapping:
A key requirement for virtual tables in Dataverse is that the primary key in the Dataverse table should match the primary key used by the external data source. While GUIDs are commonly used as unique identifiers, in the context of virtual tables, the key should map to the external system's key in such a way that it facilitates seamless interaction and data retrieval.External Source Identifier:
In most cases, the external source uses its own unique identifier (not necessarily a GUID) for records. For instance, it might use a numeric ID or another system-specific identifier. If the external source’s unique identifier is not a GUID or does not match the GUID used in Dataverse, it would result in a mismatch in the identifiers, making it challenging for the virtual table to properly link and retrieve data in real time.Mapping Requirements:
Virtual tables are designed to allow real-time access to data without storing it in Dataverse. For the virtual table to function correctly, Dataverse requires that the external system's primary key be properly mapped to the virtual table’s key, which allows Dataverse to interact with the external data. If the external system’s primary key isn’t a GUID or doesn't align with the proposed setup, the system would face difficulties retrieving or interacting with the data.Mismatch of Data Types:
If the external data source uses an identifier type that is not compatible with a GUID (for example, a numeric or alphanumeric identifier), using a GUID as the primary key would not allow proper integration or interaction between the external system and Dataverse.
Using a GUID as the primary key in this case may not fulfill the technical requirements for implementing virtual tables effectively, especially if the external system uses a different format or identifier type for its unique records. The primary key in Dataverse should be carefully aligned with the primary key format in the external data system to ensure accurate, real-time data integration and retrieval. Therefore, the correct answer is B.
Question 2
A business requires live access to data from an external system without importing it into Dataverse. Virtual tables will be used to meet this need.
Goal:
Ensure seamless integration and performance when users interact with external data through Dataverse.
Proposed Solution:
The developer chooses to implement a calculated field within the virtual table to manage integration logic.
Question:
Does adding a calculated field on the virtual table support the objective of real-time interaction with external data?
A. Yes, this aligns with virtual table functionality
B. No, calculated fields are not supported in virtual tables
Answer: B
Explanation:
When working with virtual tables in Dataverse, the goal is to integrate and interact with external data in real time without physically storing that data within Dataverse. Virtual tables allow Dataverse to display data from external systems seamlessly, while keeping the data synchronized and up-to-date without duplication. However, there are specific limitations and guidelines regarding how virtual tables operate, particularly with respect to features like calculated fields.
Why Calculated Fields Do Not Work with Virtual Tables:
No Direct Calculation in Virtual Tables:
Virtual tables in Dataverse act as a gateway to external data, retrieving and displaying information in real time as it resides in the external system. The data remains in the external source, and Dataverse is essentially querying it dynamically rather than storing it. Due to the nature of virtual tables, calculated fields are not supported in the same way as they are in standard Dataverse tables.Integration Logic via External Systems:
A calculated field in Dataverse typically performs computations based on existing data within Dataverse itself, and these fields are calculated when data is stored. Since virtual tables are meant to access live, external data directly (and not store it in Dataverse), applying calculations on that data within Dataverse itself is not possible. If integration logic or data transformation is needed, it must be handled by the external system or by using other processes like Power Automate or Azure Functions to handle those computations before they are displayed in Dataverse.External System Limitations:
In most cases, the external data sources that are integrated through virtual tables do not support the execution of Dataverse-specific calculated fields. Calculated fields typically rely on the underlying data being in Dataverse, but with virtual tables, Dataverse only retrieves the data from external sources without storing it. This restriction means that any business logic or calculated values must be handled at the source or through custom logic.Real-Time Interaction Constraints:
One of the core features of virtual tables is real-time interaction with external data. When you implement calculated fields, Dataverse would need to perform calculations at runtime, which could delay the real-time nature of data access. By disallowing calculated fields on virtual tables, Dataverse maintains its focus on seamless, real-time access to external data without introducing additional processing overhead.
Adding a calculated field directly on a virtual table does not support the goal of real-time interaction with external data, as it contradicts the design principle of virtual tables, which is to allow live data access without manipulation inside Dataverse. Therefore, the correct answer is B.
Question 3
A development team is creating a Custom API in Microsoft Dataverse to centralize and protect vital business operations on customer records. The API will be accessed by multiple workflows and applications.
Requirement:
The business logic embedded in the API must remain secure and unalterable by developers, admins, or customizers. Specifically, no plug-ins or additional logic should be allowed to modify the API’s behavior.
Observation:
While configuring the Custom API, the team finds a parameter called “Custom Processing Step.”
Question:
Which configuration setting should be selected to ensure no plug-ins or custom logic can be triggered during the Custom API’s execution?
A. Use privilege prv_SdkMessageProcessingStep to control step execution
B. Disable the “Enabled for Workflow” setting
C. Set the Binding Type to “Entity”
D. Choose “None” for Custom Processing Step
Answer: D
Explanation:
When creating a Custom API in Microsoft Dataverse, ensuring that the business logic remains secure and unaltered by developers, admins, or customizers is crucial, especially when it is being accessed by multiple workflows and applications. The configuration of the Custom Processing Step parameter plays a significant role in preventing unwanted modifications or additions to the logic by external processes such as plug-ins or custom workflows.
Why "None" for Custom Processing Step is the Correct Setting:
Custom Processing Step Definition:
The Custom Processing Step determines if a plug-in, custom workflow, or other logic can be triggered during the execution of the Custom API. By selecting "None" for this setting, you're ensuring that no plug-ins or custom steps are allowed to interact with or modify the behavior of the Custom API. This means that the logic inside the API will execute exactly as designed, without any external alterations or interruptions.Security and Unalterability:
The key requirement is to prevent any modification to the business logic of the API. If a plug-in or custom workflow were allowed to interact with the API (which could happen if the Custom Processing Step is set to something other than "None"), there would be potential risks of unauthorized changes or logic being executed, which would go against the goal of maintaining secure and unalterable logic.Control Over External Modifications:
By choosing "None" for the Custom Processing Step, you effectively prevent any interaction with the API from external sources. This includes workflows, plug-ins, and customizations from admins, developers, or customizers, which is exactly what the team needs to ensure the business logic is secure.
Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Use privilege prv_SdkMessageProcessingStep to control step execution:
The prv_SdkMessageProcessingStep privilege controls access to message processing steps, but it does not directly prevent the execution of plug-ins or custom logic. This option does not completely secure the logic within the API itself.B. Disable the “Enabled for Workflow” setting:
Disabling the “Enabled for Workflow” setting would prevent workflows from using the Custom API, but it would not guarantee that plug-ins or other custom logic won’t interfere with the API’s behavior. It only restricts workflow-based access.C. Set the Binding Type to “Entity”:
The Binding Type refers to how the Custom API is related to an entity (e.g., whether it’s bound to a specific entity). Setting the binding type to "Entity" doesn’t directly affect whether external logic like plug-ins can modify the API’s behavior.
To ensure that no plug-ins or custom logic interfere with or alter the behavior of the Custom API, the correct approach is to choose "None" for the Custom Processing Step. This prevents external processes from affecting the execution of the API and ensures that the business logic remains secure and unalterable. Therefore, the correct answer is D.
Question 4
An organization has launched a model-driven app using the Power Platform. A heavily-used form in the app is slow to load, frustrating users and reducing productivity.
Task:
As a solution architect, your job is to review and recommend optimizations for faster form load times.
Question:
Which three of the following control types are optimal for improving load performance on model-driven forms?
A. Activity Timeline
B. Quick View Components
C. Embedded iFrame
D. Lookup Fields
Answer: A, B, D
Explanation:
Optimizing the load performance of model-driven apps in the Power Platform is crucial to ensuring a smooth user experience and maintaining productivity. When designing forms, the types of controls and components used can significantly impact the speed at which the form loads, especially if the form is heavily used. Here's an analysis of each control type in the context of improving load performance:
Why A, B, and D are Correct:
A. Activity Timeline:
The Activity Timeline is a useful control type in model-driven forms because it aggregates communication and activity records (like emails, phone calls, tasks, etc.) into a timeline view. Activity Timeline is optimized to display related activities in an efficient manner, meaning that it reduces the number of queries and data fetching required for each activity. This helps in improving load performance by pulling only relevant activity data and presenting it in a compact, performance-optimized format, especially in comparison to loading raw activity data on the form itself.B. Quick View Components:
Quick View Components are controls that allow users to view related data from another record without having to navigate to a different form or open additional pages. They provide a way to present related data efficiently and avoid loading entire related record data on the form itself, reducing the load time for the form. The related data is only fetched when the Quick View Component is expanded, and the component is optimized for performance, making it a good choice for improving the overall form load time.D. Lookup Fields:
Lookup Fields allow users to select and link to records from other entities. While lookup fields fetch related records, they are optimized for performance and only query the necessary records when the user interacts with the lookup control. Instead of loading large sets of related data, lookup fields fetch specific records on demand, which results in improved form load performance. This is far more efficient than embedding entire related data within the form.
Why C is Incorrect:
C. Embedded iFrame:
Embedded iFrames are one of the least optimal control types for performance. An iFrame embeds an external webpage or application within the form. The iFrame can load content from external sources, which often leads to longer load times, especially if the external page or resource is slow or requires multiple requests. Moreover, iFrames can introduce additional latency due to cross-origin resource sharing (CORS) rules, making them a poor choice for improving form load performance in model-driven apps. Because of the external dependencies, iFrames can degrade form responsiveness, especially when handling large or complex content.
To optimize the load performance of the form, the best control types are Activity Timeline, Quick View Components, and Lookup Fields. These controls are designed to efficiently load and display only the necessary data, enhancing the form’s performance. Therefore, the correct answer is A, B, D.
Question 5
A university is using Dynamics 365 Sales to manage internal funding opportunities. Each department uses opportunity records for submitting proposals and competing for funding.
Current Setup:
Each department can only access its own opportunities. However, staff from multiple departments occasionally need to collaborate on shared records but are unable to do so under the current configuration.
Proposed Solution:
The system administrator implements a Position Hierarchy Security model, assigning each department a unique position in the hierarchy.
Question:
Does this approach allow cross-departmental collaboration while maintaining record access control?
A. Yes, it enables appropriate collaboration
B. No, it does not address the collaboration challenge
Answer: B
Explanation:
In Dynamics 365 Sales, security models are critical to defining how users can access records and collaborate on them. The Position Hierarchy Security model is typically used to provide role-based security, where users are assigned access to records based on their role in the organization's hierarchy. This model allows users higher in the hierarchy to have visibility and control over records owned by users below them in the hierarchy.
Why This Model Might Not Solve the Problem:
The Position Hierarchy Security model is designed to control access to records based on an individual’s role in the hierarchy and is typically used for organizational structures. However, in the context of the university scenario, the challenge is that staff from different departments need to collaborate on shared opportunity records. The Position Hierarchy Security model, as described, does not inherently allow access to shared records across departments unless there's a hierarchical relationship between departments in the security model.
If the university’s structure is such that the departments do not have a hierarchical relationship, or if the users from one department are not in a higher or related position to those in another department, collaboration across departments won't be enabled by just assigning positions in the hierarchy. This security model might still restrict access to opportunity records because the model is focused on vertical access control, not cross-departmental collaboration.
Better Approaches for Cross-Departmental Collaboration:
Sharing Records: One solution to enable cross-departmental collaboration is using record sharing in Dynamics 365. Users from different departments can be granted explicit access to the shared opportunities. This allows collaboration while keeping the record access control intact.
Teams and Business Units: Using Teams within Dynamics 365, users from different departments can be grouped into collaborative teams, with shared access to records. Additionally, leveraging business units and setting proper access levels could help facilitate cross-departmental work while ensuring appropriate access control.
Security Roles: Proper configuration of security roles that grant appropriate access to multiple departments can also solve the issue, allowing staff from different departments to view and update shared records based on their role.
While the Position Hierarchy Security model can control access within a department or organizational level, it does not necessarily address the challenge of enabling cross-departmental collaboration on shared records. Therefore, the correct answer is B. No, it does not address the collaboration challenge. Other models like record sharing or business unit configuration would be more suitable to address the need for collaboration.
Question 6
A university uses Dynamics 365 Sales to handle project funding. Departments are granted exclusive access to their opportunity records for data privacy.
Problem:
Collaborating across departments on shared opportunities is not currently supported due to strict access limitations.
Proposed Approach:
A new security role is created that grants organization-level access to opportunity records. This role is assigned to all employees requiring collaboration.
Question:
Does granting organization-level access to all collaborators satisfy the goal of limited and secure collaboration?
A. Yes, this method allows necessary access
B. No, this overexposes data beyond what’s required
Answer: B
Explanation:
The proposed approach of granting organization-level access to all collaborators within Dynamics 365 Sales may seem like a straightforward way to enable cross-departmental collaboration, but it presents a significant security concern. Let’s break down the implications of this approach.
Understanding Organization-Level Access:
An organization-level security role provides access to all records of a certain entity within the system—in this case, opportunity records—without restrictions based on ownership. This means that individuals assigned this role would be able to view, edit, and interact with every opportunity record in the system, regardless of which department owns it.
While this approach ensures that employees can collaborate freely on shared records, it removes the data privacy protections that were initially put in place. In other words, the principle of least privilege, which is critical for securing sensitive data, is compromised.
Why This Overexposes Data:
Excessive Access: By granting organization-level access, all employees who are assigned this role would have access to all opportunities, including those they may not need or should not have access to. This could result in exposure of confidential information or data that is not relevant to their role or department.
Data Privacy Risk: The original goal was to ensure that departments had exclusive access to their own opportunity records for data privacy. Assigning organization-level access removes this control, potentially violating internal privacy policies, compliance regulations, or data protection standards.
Lack of Granular Control: The organization-level access model does not provide the necessary granular control required for a secure and tailored collaboration. It allows too broad a level of access, which can lead to inadvertent or unauthorized exposure of sensitive data.
Better Approach for Limited and Secure Collaboration:
Instead of providing organization-level access, the following methods can better support secure collaboration while ensuring that access is appropriately restricted:
Record Sharing: Dynamics 365 allows for record-level sharing, where specific users or teams can be granted access to individual records or sets of records. This approach ensures that collaborators from different departments can access only the records they need, without exposing other unrelated data.
Teams and Security Roles: The system can also be configured to create collaboration teams that span multiple departments. With appropriate security roles and record-level sharing, only the relevant users will have access to the shared opportunity records, without granting blanket access to all records.
Business Units: The use of business units in conjunction with security roles can ensure that access is granted at a more refined level. Business units can be used to group departments and limit the scope of access within an organization while still allowing interdepartmental collaboration.
Granting organization-level access to all collaborators undermines the goal of limited and secure collaboration. While it facilitates collaboration, it exposes data beyond what is necessary for the task at hand. Therefore, the correct answer is B. No, this overexposes data beyond what’s required. More granular security configurations should be used to balance both collaboration and data privacy.
Question 7
A university recently deployed Dynamics 365 Sales to manage project opportunities across different departments. While record access is department-restricted for privacy, many projects involve inter-departmental cooperation.
Challenge:
Employees from different departments can't access opportunities unless they originated them, making joint project work difficult.
Proposed Solution:
Access Team Templates are introduced to selectively share opportunity records with collaborators from different departments.
Question:
Does this solution appropriately support collaboration while maintaining department-level data control?
A. Yes, it offers secure, record-level collaboration
B. No, it does not sufficiently restrict access
Answer: A
Explanation:
In this scenario, the university has deployed Dynamics 365 Sales to manage project opportunities across different departments, with a specific requirement to allow inter-departmental cooperation while maintaining strict department-level privacy for project records. Let’s analyze the proposed solution and its implications for data control and collaboration.
Understanding Access Team Templates:
Access Team Templates in Dynamics 365 allow users to create predefined sets of collaborators that can be associated with specific records, such as opportunities in this case. These templates define which users or teams have access to specific records. The key benefit of this solution is that it allows the university to selectively share records between different departments, facilitating collaboration on shared opportunities.
Access teams are a feature designed to provide record-level sharing, which means that access can be granted on a per-record basis, ensuring that only the relevant users can view or edit the opportunity records that they are involved in. This is a crucial feature for enabling collaboration while preserving department-level access control.
How This Solution Supports Collaboration:
Inter-departmental Access: By using access team templates, employees from different departments can be granted access to specific opportunity records without opening up access to all records within the system. This allows for joint project work between departments without compromising the privacy of records that are not relevant to those employees.
Granular Control: The Access Team Templates ensure that departments can maintain ownership and control over their records while still enabling collaboration where necessary. This enables users to cooperate on shared projects, such as collaborative funding proposals, without risking exposure to unrelated data.
Customizable Collaboration: Templates allow the flexibility to configure which individuals, teams, or departments can be granted access to specific opportunities. This is crucial for secure, record-level collaboration, ensuring that only relevant stakeholders from other departments can interact with the project records.
Department-Level Data Control:
The department-level access is maintained because the Access Team Templates allow for restricted access to specific records. Users from other departments only see those records explicitly shared with them, ensuring that there is no unauthorized access to other departments' data.
Comparison to Other Methods:
Other methods of sharing records, such as organization-level access or wide-reaching security roles, would undermine the department-level control by providing access to a larger set of records than necessary. The Access Team Templates, however, are a tailored solution, allowing for secure collaboration without overexposing data.
The introduction of Access Team Templates allows for secure, record-level collaboration while preserving the necessary department-level data control. This solution is ideal for scenarios where collaboration across departments is needed but must be carefully managed to ensure privacy and security. Therefore, the correct answer is A. Yes, it offers secure, record-level collaboration.
Question 8
A company wants to ensure that only a limited group of users can modify sensitive records in a model-driven Power App. However, many users still need read-only access to view those records.
Proposed Solution:
The administrator creates two separate security roles: one with full access and one with read-only permissions, then assigns users accordingly.
Question:
Is this approach effective for implementing role-based data access?
A. Yes, it aligns with Dataverse security role best practices
B. No, separate roles do not control access properly
C. Only if the users are also placed in separate business units
D. This setup works only when field-level security is enabled
Answer: A
Explanation:
In Microsoft Dataverse (the underlying platform for model-driven Power Apps), role-based security is used to manage access to records. This ensures that users can only perform actions on records according to the roles they are assigned, such as read-only access or full access.
The Proposed Solution:
The administrator’s approach is to create two distinct security roles:
Full Access Role: This role will have the permissions necessary for users to modify sensitive records.
Read-Only Role: This role will only provide read-only access, restricting users from modifying records but still allowing them to view them.
This approach is consistent with best practices in role-based security within Dataverse. Here's why it’s effective:
1. Separation of Permissions:
Dataverse security roles control what users can see and do with records at a granular level. Creating separate roles for full access and read-only access aligns with standard security practices where you want to separate duties and responsibilities.
By defining two separate roles with clearly delineated permissions, the administrator ensures that users who need to modify sensitive records are given the proper permissions (full access) while others who only need to view records are restricted to read-only access. This minimizes the risk of unintended changes to sensitive data.
2. Role-Based Access Control (RBAC):
RBAC is a core security model for Dataverse. In this model, users are assigned specific roles, and the roles define what data they can access and what actions they can perform. Assigning users the appropriate security roles based on their needs (full access or read-only) is a best practice for controlling data access.
3. Fine-Grained Control:
Dataverse security roles also provide the capability to control access at multiple levels—such as entity-level permissions, record-level permissions, and field-level permissions. By creating separate roles with different access levels (full vs. read-only), the administrator can ensure that users are appropriately restricted without over-restricting them.
Additionally, these roles can be customized further to provide access to specific records or specific fields, allowing for fine-grained control over who can modify which data.
Why the Other Options Are Not Ideal:
B. No, separate roles do not control access properly: This is incorrect because creating separate roles (full access vs. read-only) is an effective and common practice in role-based access control in Dataverse. It ensures that each group of users has only the access they need.
C. Only if the users are also placed in separate business units: This is not necessary for role-based access control. Security roles can work across business units (in Dataverse) without requiring users to be in separate units. You can define organizational-wide roles that are applied to users regardless of their business unit.
D. This setup works only when field-level security is enabled: Field-level security is not required to implement this approach. Field-level security is used to control access to specific fields within records, but role-based security is sufficient for managing access to entire records (whether read-only or full access).
The approach of creating two separate roles—one with full access and one with read-only access—effectively uses role-based security in Microsoft Dataverse to control who can modify sensitive records and who can only view them. Therefore, the correct answer is A. Yes, it aligns with Dataverse security role best practices.
Question 9
An organization is using Power Automate to integrate data between an external system and Microsoft Dataverse. They need to ensure real-time processing of updates whenever a record is modified in the external source.
Proposed Solution:
The team creates a scheduled cloud flow that runs every hour to sync data.
Question:
Does this solution meet the need for real-time synchronization?
Options:
A. Yes, an hourly schedule is near-real-time
B. No, this approach is not real-time
C. Yes, if you combine it with custom triggers
D. No, unless polling is performed every 5 minutes
Answer: B. No, this approach is not real-time
Explanation:
Real-time synchronization typically means that data updates are processed and reflected almost immediately as they occur. For the organization's needs to be met (real-time updates when a record is modified in the external source), an hourly sync is insufficient because there is a delay of one hour between updates, which does not fulfill the real-time requirement.
Why the Other Options Are Not Correct:
A. Yes, an hourly schedule is near-real-time:
While an hourly sync is frequent, it is not considered real-time. Real-time synchronization implies that updates happen almost instantaneously (or with minimal delay), so an hourly schedule falls short of this expectation.C. Yes, if you combine it with custom triggers:
This option would only be true if the custom triggers could immediately process changes in real time as they occur in the external system. However, using a scheduled flow (every hour) still wouldn't meet the "real-time" requirement because the trigger is still based on a delayed schedule.D. No, unless polling is performed every 5 minutes:
Polling every 5 minutes would reduce the delay and bring it closer to real-time synchronization, but real-time synchronization would still ideally require immediate event-driven updates rather than periodic polling. Polling every 5 minutes still introduces a delay between updates.
Real-time Solution:
To meet real-time synchronization, you would typically use an event-driven approach such as:
Using Power Automate’s triggers like When a record is created, updated, or deleted in Dataverse or the external system.
Implementing webhooks or Event Grid to notify Power Automate of changes immediately as they happen in the external system.
This ensures updates are processed and reflected as soon as a change occurs, providing real-time data synchronization.
Conclusion:
The proposed solution (scheduled hourly sync) does not meet the real-time requirement, making B. No, this approach is not real-time the correct answer.
Question 10
A company wants to allow external partners to submit project proposals via a Power Apps Portal, which should then be accessible inside Dynamics 365 as Opportunity records.
Requirement:
Ensure data submitted from the portal is captured securely and is available for internal users without manual import.
Proposed Solution:
Use Dataverse table forms in the Power Apps Portal, with automatic record creation rules for opportunities.
Question:
Does this solution meet the requirement?
Options:
A. Yes, it ensures seamless and secure integration
B. No, table forms can't create opportunity records
C. Yes, but only if a workflow is manually triggered
D. No, data must be imported via Excel or Power Query
Answer: A. Yes, it ensures seamless and secure integration
Explanation:
In the Power Apps Portal, Dataverse table forms allow external users to submit data securely, which can then automatically create records in the Dataverse (and thus be available in Dynamics 365).
The use of table forms in the Power Apps Portal directly links the external submissions to Dataverse tables. When external partners submit proposals via the portal, this data is automatically stored in the appropriate Dataverse table (in this case, likely related to Opportunity records in Dynamics 365).
Automatic record creation rules can be configured to automatically create Opportunity records in Dynamics 365, ensuring seamless integration without manual intervention. This enables the organization to have external data captured and processed automatically.
Why the Other Options Are Not Correct:
B. No, table forms can't create opportunity records:
This is incorrect. Dataverse table forms can create records in the Dataverse directly, which can then be used for internal operations. There is no limitation that prevents the creation of Opportunity records.C. Yes, but only if a workflow is manually triggered:
This is not necessary. Automatic record creation rules can ensure that data is captured and stored in Dynamics 365 without the need for manual workflows. The solution can be automated.D. No, data must be imported via Excel or Power Query:
This is incorrect. The data can be captured directly through Power Apps Portal using Dataverse table forms, eliminating the need for manual import via Excel or Power Query.
The proposed solution ensures seamless and secure integration between the external portal submissions and the internal Dynamics 365 system, as the Dataverse table forms automatically capture and store the data in Opportunity records. Therefore, A. Yes, it ensures seamless and secure integration is the correct answer.
