Free Salesforce Platform Developer II Practice Test Questions (2026)

Explanation:

When a developer is performing multiple data manipulation operations—such as inserting, updating, or deleting lists of records—in a single transaction, maintaining data integrity is crucial. This means that either all operations should succeed or none at all. If any one of the operations fails, the system should revert to the original state as if nothing had happened. This is the foundational principle of atomicity in transactional systems.

The correct way to enforce this behavior in Salesforce Apex is to use a combination of Database.setSavepoint() and Database.rollback() within a try-catch block. This allows the developer to define a specific point in time (a "savepoint") before any DML (Data Manipulation Language) operations are performed. If an exception occurs at any point during the sequence of operations, the code within the catch block can execute a rollback to that predefined savepoint, effectively undoing all the changes made after the savepoint was set. This ensures that the database remains in a consistent state and that no partial or unintended data changes occur.

This approach is especially important in complex business logic where multiple objects or large sets of data are involved, and the failure of even one operation should invalidate the entire transaction. Without this mechanism, Apex's default behavior would only roll back the operation that failed, while any previous successful DML statements would remain committed—leading to inconsistent data.

To reinforce:
→ Savepoints provide manual control over transaction checkpoints.
→ Rollbacks to a savepoint undo all operations that occurred after it.
→ This method guarantees all-or-nothing execution within a single transaction.
Using Database.setSavepoint() and Database.rollback() not only improves error resilience but also aligns with best practices for ensuring data consistency and system reliability in enterprise-level Salesforce applications.

Explanation:

When multiple Lightning Web Components (LWCs) independently fire toast notifications for error handling, it leads to a poor user experience — especially when they're stacked together on a single page. It becomes overwhelming and unclear.

✅ A. Use a Lightning web component to aggregate and display all errors
➟ Creating a centralized error handling component helps consolidate and display error messages in one place.
➟ Each component can emit error events to the parent/aggregator, which then decides how and when to display the messages.
➟ This avoids multiple toasts popping up at once and makes error messages manageable and user-friendly.

✅ C. Use a tag to display in-place error messages
➟ This tag is designed to display validation or error messages directly in the UI, next to form fields or the component that caused the issue.
➟ It's a better UX pattern than pop-up toasts, especially in multi-component layouts.

❌ B. Use the window.alert() method to display the error messages
➟ window.alert() is a blocking pop-up that interrupts user flow.
➟ It's not recommended in modern web app design and is not Lightning-friendly.

❌ D. Use public properties on each component to display the error messages
➟ Public properties (@api) are meant for data passing between components, not for UI display of errors.
➟ This approach doesn't help centralize or manage error messaging across multiple components.

📚 Reference:
Lightning Web Components Best Practices – Error Handling
Salesforce Toast vs Inline Messages

✅ Final Answer:
A. Use a Lightning web component to aggregate and display all errors
C. Use a tag to display in-place error messages

Explanation:

✅ Correct Answer: A. Check the isCustom() value on the sObject describe result
The correct approach for identifying custom objects in Salesforce is by using the isCustom() method on the results obtained from the sObject Describe API. This method is part of the DescribeSObjectResult class in the Apex Schema namespace and returns a Boolean value that tells whether a particular object is custom (true) or standard (false). When a developer writes an Apex method to support a Lightning Web Component (LWC) that displays a dropdown list of only custom objects, the Apex code would typically use the Schema.getGlobalDescribe() method to retrieve a map of all sObjects in the org.

Then, for each object, the developer would call describe() to get its metadata and invoke isCustom() to filter only those with a true result. This method is both reliable and native to Salesforce's metadata introspection tools, making it the most appropriate way to dynamically identify and return only custom objects. This enables the LWC to display only the relevant options without hardcoding any object names or relying on schema imports, which could become outdated or inflexible.

❌ Option B: Import the list of all custom objects from @salesforce/schema
This option is incorrect because importing objects using the @salesforce/schema directive in LWC is designed for statically referencing individual fields or objects, not dynamically listing them. In other words, @salesforce/schema requires that the object or field be explicitly named at design time, and it cannot be used to retrieve a complete or dynamic list of all custom objects.

Moreover, @salesforce/schema is a compile-time construct, which means it does not support the level of runtime introspection that is needed for a component meant to list all custom objects in a flexible and dynamic way. Using this approach would defeat the purpose of using Apex for dynamic metadata access, and it would require hardcoded imports for every potential custom object, which is both impractical and non-scalable in real-world Salesforce orgs.

❌ Option C: Check the getObjectType() value for 'Custom' or 'Standard' on the sObject describe result
This option is incorrect because the getObjectType() method in Salesforce Apex does not return a string indicating whether the object is "Custom" or "Standard." Instead, getObjectType() returns an instance of Schema.SObjectType, which refers to the type of the object but not its classification as custom or standard.

Therefore, there's no way to extract a direct textual label like "Custom" or "Standard" from getObjectType(). This makes the approach described in this option technically invalid for the purpose of distinguishing between custom and standard objects. The only correct and supported method to achieve this is isCustom(), which directly returns a boolean indicating the object type.

❌ Option D: Use the getCustomObjects() method from the Schema class
This option is incorrect because the Schema class in Apex does not have a method called getCustomObjects(). While the Schema namespace provides powerful reflection capabilities, such as getGlobalDescribe() and various describe calls on individual objects and fields, there is no method specifically designed to return only custom objects in one call.

Developers must retrieve all sObjects using Schema.getGlobalDescribe(), and then programmatically filter them using describe().isCustom() for each entry. The method described in this option simply does not exist, which makes it technically incorrect and misleading in a Salesforce Apex context.

Reference:
Apex Reference Guide
Apex Describe Information

Explanation:

To make the Apex method getRecentContacts wireable to a property in a Lightning Web Component (LWC) for the Account record page, which displays the five most recently contacted Contacts, the method must meet specific requirements for LWC integration. The code provided is an Apex class ContactFetcher with a public static method getRecentContacts that calls a private static method getFiveMostRecent. Let’s analyze the requirements and evaluate the options.

Requirements for Wiring Apex to LWC:
➤ The Apex method must be annotated with @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) to be called from an LWC using the @wire decorator. This annotation ensures the method is cacheable, improving performance by reducing server calls, and makes it accessible to the Lightning framework.
➤ The method must be static and accessible (e.g., public or global) to be invoked from LWC.
➤ The current code has getRecentContacts as static and public, which satisfies the accessibility requirement, but it lacks the @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) annotation.

Analysis of the Code:
➤ Line 03: public class ContactFetcher { - The class is public, which is sufficient for LWC access.
➤ Line 04: static List getRecentContacts(Id accountId) { - The method is public and static, meeting the basic accessibility requirement, but it needs @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) to be wireable.
➤ Line 06: List contacts = getFiveMostRecent(accountId); - This calls the private method.
➤ Line 09: private static List getFiveMostRecent(Id accountId) { - The private method is not directly called by LWC, so it doesn’t need @AuraEnabled, but its visibility is irrelevant to the wire operation since getRecentContacts handles the external call.

Evaluation of Options:

A. Add @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) to line 08.
Line 08 is the opening brace { of the getRecentContacts method, which is not a valid place for an annotation. Annotations like @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) must precede the method declaration (e.g., on Line 04). This option is incorrect due to improper placement.

B. Remove private from line 09.
Line 09 defines private static List getFiveMostRecent(Id accountId) {. The getFiveMostRecent method is called internally by getRecentContacts and is not directly accessed by LWC. Changing its visibility to public or removing private is unnecessary, as LWC only needs to wire to the public getRecentContacts method. This option is incorrect because it doesn’t address the wireability requirement.

C. Add public to line 04.
Line 04 already has public static List getRecentContacts(Id accountId) {, so the method is already public. Adding public again is redundant and does not change its wireability. The issue is the lack of @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true), not the access modifier. This option is incorrect.

D. Add @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) to line 03.
Line 03 defines the class public class ContactFetcher {, and annotations like @AuraEnabled are not applicable to class declarations—they are used on methods or variables. This option is incorrect due to incorrect application of the annotation.

Correct Answer: None of the options directly match the ideal solution based on the provided choices. However, the intent seems to be identifying changes to make getRecentContacts wireable. The correct change should be to add @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) to Line 04, but this is not explicitly listed. Let’s reconsider the options:
➜ The closest logical interpretation, given the options, suggests a misunderstanding in the question’s numbering or options. Typically, the correct change would be to modify Line 04 to include @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) (e.g., public static List getRecentContacts(Id accountId) becomes @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) public static List getRecentContacts(Id accountId)). However, since Option A mentions Line 08 incorrectly, and no option correctly targets Line 04, we must select the best fit from the given choices.

Re-evaluation:
➡️ A is the closest in intent (adding @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true)), but the line number (08) is wrong—it should be 04. This might be a typo in the question.
➡️ B, C, D do not address the core requirement of making the method wireable.

Adjusted Correct Answers: A. Add @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) to line 08 (assuming a typo, intended for Line 04).

Reason: The primary change needed is to add @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) to the getRecentContacts method declaration (Line 04) to make it wireable in LWC. The cacheable=true parameter ensures the method’s results are cached, which is mandatory for @wire in LWC to optimize performance. The private getFiveMostRecent method does not need modification since it’s an internal call. This aligns with the Platform Developer II exam’s “User Interface” and “Apex Programming” domains.

Reference: Salesforce LWC Developer Guide - Call Apex Using @wire and AuraEnabled Annotation.

Additional Notes:
The correct implementation would modify Line 04 to @AuraEnabled(cacheable=true) public static List getRecentContacts(Id accountId) {. The question’s options seem to contain a numbering error, as Line 08 is inside the method block. If this is a test artifact, assume Option A intends Line 04, and no second change is required from the listed options.

Explanation:

✅ Correct Answer: C. Write a single trigger on Contact for both after update and before update and call out to helper classes to handle each set of logic 🧠
This is the optimal solution because it efficiently separates concerns while maintaining performance, scalability, and testability. Salesforce encourages developers to follow best practices by using a single trigger per object and delegating business logic to helper classes. This architecture ensures clean, modular code that is easier to maintain and extend.

The requirement to enforce only one Contact marked as "Is Primary" per Account needs to be handled after DML because it may require reviewing or updating other sibling contacts—records not necessarily in the trigger context. Therefore, it’s appropriate to handle this logic in the after update or after insert context, where all related records can be queried and modified accordingly.

On the other hand, the requirement to store the Contact’s last name in uppercase is best addressed in the before update or before insert context. This way, the data is modified before it hits the database, avoiding unnecessary updates or recursion. By combining both trigger events (before and after) in a single trigger, and delegating the logic to a helper class or service class, the solution remains clean and adheres to Salesforce's governor limits and coding standards.

❌ Option A: Write a Validation Rule on the Contact for the Is Primary logic and a before update trigger on Contact for the last name logic ⚠️
Using a Validation Rule to enforce the "only one primary contact per account" requirement is not viable. Validation rules cannot perform cross-record comparisons or updates. They can only evaluate conditions on the current record or related parent fields, not sibling records. Since this use case requires scanning all Contacts related to an Account to ensure only one is marked as primary, a validation rule cannot satisfy this constraint.

While the second part—converting the last name to uppercase—is fine in a before update trigger, relying on validation rules for complex data integrity enforcement that involves multiple records leads to limitations. This approach would leave the primary contact logic incomplete and prone to failure if multiple users attempt updates concurrently.

❌ Option B: Write an after update trigger on Contact for the Is Primary logic and a separate before update trigger on Contact for the last name logic 🧩
While technically correct, this approach violates the “one trigger per object” best practice. Having multiple triggers on the same object leads to maintenance problems, ordering conflicts, and increased risk of recursion or redundant logic. Salesforce does not guarantee trigger execution order when more than one trigger exists for the same object and event, which can lead to unpredictable behavior.

Moreover, splitting the logic into separate triggers for before update and after update increases complexity and decreases traceability. Even though this would work functionally, it is not optimal for long-term maintainability and testability. A unified trigger with clear delegation to helper classes is the more scalable solution.

❌ Option D: Write an after update trigger on Account for the Is Primary logic and a before update trigger on Contact for the last name logic ❌
This option mistakenly places the primary contact logic on the Account object, which is incorrect. The checkbox indicating whether a Contact is primary resides on the Contact record, and the logic that ensures only one is selected must execute in response to Contact changes, not Account changes. Using an Account trigger for this would require querying and acting upon unrelated child records and could introduce unnecessary complexity and performance issues.

Additionally, although the before update trigger for capitalizing the last name is appropriate, splitting the logic between two object triggers and two different scopes complicates the codebase. This design is not aligned with the principle of handling logic on the object that owns the field being changed.

Reference:
Trigger Context Variables
Trigger and Bulk Request Best Practices

Explanation:

In the provided code, the class MyRemoter defines a static method marked with the @RemoteAction annotation:

@RemoteAction
global static Account getAccount(String accountName)

⇨ This method takes an accountName string as a parameter, performs a SOQL query to fetch the Account with that name, and returns it.
⇨ Since getAccount() is a static method, the correct way to call it in Apex is directly via the class name — MyRemoter.getAccount('TestAccount') — as shown in Option C. There's no need to instantiate the class to access a static method, which makes this the cleanest and most appropriate syntax.
⇨ Once the Account object is returned, it is compared using System.assertEquals() to verify the name matches "TestAccount". This is exactly the right approach to assert that the correct Account record was returned by the remote action.

❌ Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

A)
Account a = controller.getAccount('TestAccount');
System.assertEquals('TestAccount', a.Name);

🔴 Incorrect because controller is undefined in the context. The code assumes the existence of a controller variable or object, which has not been declared. Furthermore, the method getAccount() is a static method in MyRemoter, so it should be called using the class name — not via an instance or another object.

B)
MyRemoter remote = new MyRemoter('TestAccount');
Account a = remote.getAccount();
System.assertEquals('TestAccount', a.Name);

🔴 Incorrect because it tries to instantiate the MyRemoter class with a constructor that accepts a string ('TestAccount'), but no such constructor exists. In the class code shown, only a default constructor (public MyRemoter() {}) is defined. This would cause a compilation error. Also, getAccount() is static, so it should not be called via an instance (remote.getAccount()).

D)
MyRemoter remote = new MyRemoter();
Account a = remote.getAccount('TestAccount');
System.assertEquals('TestAccount', a.Name);

🔴 Incorrect because even though it uses the correct parameter format ('TestAccount'), it still calls the static method getAccount() via an instance (remote.getAccount(...)) instead of the class itself. This is syntactically allowed in Apex but is discouraged and misleading, especially in test code. Static methods should always be invoked using the class name, not an object instance.

Reference:
Apex Developer Guide
JavaScript Remoting for Apex Controllers

Explanation:

❌ A. Adjust any code that filters by picklist values since they are not indexed: Picklist fields in Salesforce are indexed by default, so filtering on them is generally efficient. While indexing impacts query performance, it doesn’t directly address the view state size limit error, which is caused by excessive data stored in the page’s state. This option is incorrect as it doesn’t resolve the view state issue or significantly improve performance for large datasets.

❌ B. Remove instances of the transient keyword from the Apex controller to avoid the view state error: The transient keyword reduces view state by excluding variables from being serialized, which helps avoid the view state size limit error. Removing transient would increase the view state, worsening the issue, making this option incorrect.

✅ C. Use a StandardSetController or SOQL LIMIT in the Apex controller to limit the number of records displayed at a time: The “Maximum view state size limit exceeded” error occurs when the page’s state (data sent between client and server) exceeds 170 KB. A primary contributor is large datasets, such as lists of records stored in the controller. Using a StandardSetController enables pagination, limiting the number of records loaded at once (e.g., 20 per page), which reduces both view state size and page load time. Alternatively, a SOQL LIMIT clause in a custom controller can restrict the number of records retrieved, achieving a similar effect. This directly addresses both the performance and view state issues, making it the best solution.

❌ D. Split the layout to filter records in one Visualforce page and display the list in a second page using the same Apex controller: While splitting the UI across two pages might reduce the view state on the display page, it doesn’t inherently limit the data retrieved or processed by the controller. It adds complexity without directly addressing the root cause (large datasets in view state), making it less effective than option C.

🧩 Reason: Option C leverages StandardSetController or SOQL LIMIT to reduce the number of records handled, directly mitigating the view state size limit error and improving performance by loading fewer records at a time. This aligns with the Platform Developer II exam’s focus on “User Interface” and Visualforce optimization.

ℹ️ Reference: Salesforce Visualforce Developer Guide - StandardSetController and View State.

Explanation:

✅ Correct Answer: B — After insert trigger with Apex Sharing Reasons and Managed Sharing
🔐 Why this works:
When implementing Apex Managed Sharing, Salesforce requires that the record already exist in the database so it has a valid record ID. This ID is necessary for creating a custom Share record that links the record to the user in the Event_Reviewer__c field. Because of this, the logic to share the record must happen after the insert — which is why the correct place is an after insert trigger.

🛠 Managed Sharing gives full control over access logic in Apex. By using a custom Apex Sharing Reason, you can apply named reasons for the share (e.g., “Assigned Reviewer Access”), and admins can later manage them through the UI if needed. This also keeps sharing logic dynamic and scalable, suitable for future changes.

📚 Use Case Fit:
This solution supports the requirement that access is automatically granted when a user is assigned as a reviewer. It works with private sharing models, ensures proper access is granted without compromising security, and is admin-friendly due to its maintainability.

❌ A — Before insert trigger with Apex Managed Sharing
🚫 Why it's wrong:
In a before insert trigger, the record does not yet have a Salesforce ID, which is essential to create a valid Share object in Apex. Since Apex Managed Sharing requires the ParentId (record ID) to associate the shared record to the target user, this method fails technically. The trigger would attempt to share a record that doesn’t yet exist — leading to runtime errors or unintended behavior.

💡 Key Concept:
Sharing must occur after the database transaction, which makes this a clear architectural limitation of before triggers.

❌ C — Criteria-based sharing rule for Event Reviewers
🚫 Why it's wrong:
Criteria-based sharing rules can only apply access based on record field values — not based on dynamic user lookups like Event_Reviewer__c. You can’t configure them to assign access directly to the user listed in a lookup field. They also only support role, group, or public access, not individual user-based field references.

⚠️ Limitation:
They are designed for bulk sharing to groups of users, not one-to-one sharing based on lookup assignments. Therefore, they can’t fulfill the requirement to grant access dynamically to the user assigned.

❌ D — Share with a group of Event Reviewers
🚫 Why it's wrong:
This would share every Convention Attendee record with a static group of users, regardless of who is assigned as Event_Reviewer__c. This does not meet the requirement of only granting access to the specific assigned reviewer. Also, if reviewers change or rotate frequently, managing group membership would become cumbersome and error-prone.

📉 Problem:
It lacks flexibility, introduces overhead, and fails to dynamically reflect the lookup field changes.

Reference:
Apex Managed Sharing

Explanation:

To enable Salesforce administrators to use a Lightning Web Component (LWC) within the Lightning App Builder, the developer must configure the component’s XML configuration file (e.g., myComponent.js-meta.xml) to expose the component and specify where it can be used. The question asks for the two settings needed to achieve this, specifically for a component that displays record information as a modal in the context of a record page. Let’s evaluate the options.

✅ A. Specify the target to be lightning_RecordPage
The lightning_RecordPage target in the LWC’s XML configuration file indicates that the component can be used on a Lightning Record Page in the Lightning App Builder. Since the component displays information about the record in context (implying it’s used on a record page), this target is necessary to make the component available for administrators to add to record pages. This setting is configured in the section of the XML file, ensuring the component is surfaced in the App Builder for record pages.
🧩 Reference: Salesforce LWC Developer Guide - Configure Components for Lightning App Builder.

✅ B. Set the IsExposed attribute to true.
The isExposed attribute in the XML configuration file must be set to true to make the LWC available for use in tools like the Lightning App Builder. Without this setting, the component remains private and cannot be accessed or added by administrators in the App Builder, regardless of the specified targets. This is a critical setting for exposing the component for administrative use.
🧩 Reference: Salesforce LWC Developer Guide - Expose a Component.

❌ C. Specify the target to be lightning_AppPage
The lightning_AppPage target allows the component to be used on a Lightning App Page in the Lightning App Builder. While this is a valid target, the question specifies that the component displays record-specific information as a modal, suggesting it is intended for use on a record page (where record context is available) rather than an app page (which is typically for custom applications without a specific record context). Thus, this target is not relevant to the described use case.
🧩 Reference: Salesforce LWC Developer Guide - Component Configuration.

❌ D. Set the IsVisible attribute to true
There is no isVisible attribute in the LWC XML configuration file. The correct attribute is isExposed, which controls whether the component is available in the Lightning App Builder and other contexts. This option is incorrect because it references a nonexistent attribute, likely a distractor in the exam context.
🧩 Reference: Salesforce LWC Developer Guide - Metadata Configuration.

✅ Correct Answers: A. Specify the target to be lightning_RecordPage and B. Set the IsExposed attribute to true.
Reason: To make the LWC available in the Lightning App Builder for use on a record page, the developer must set isExposed="true" in the XML configuration file to expose the component and include lightning_RecordPage in the section to specify that it can be used on Lightning Record Pages. These settings ensure administrators can add the component to record pages in the App Builder, aligning with the requirement to display record-specific information (as a modal, which is a UI detail handled in the component’s implementation). This question tests knowledge of LWC configuration, a key topic in the Salesforce Platform Developer II exam’s “User Interface” domain.

Explanation:

📌 Why A is Correct
The issue lies in test execution context and sharing rules. When the test method runs, it executes in the context of the default test user (a system context user), not the intended “Standard User” (user2). The method AccountController.getAllAccounts() performs a SOQL query that’s affected by the sharing rules of the user executing the query.
In Salesforce, when using with sharing in an Apex class (as seen in AccountController), the query obeys object-level sharing rules. Therefore, the number of records returned by getAllAccounts() depends on what records the current user can access.
In the test, you create 20 records assigned to user2, but unless you run the query as user2, your test won't see them — hence the assertion fails (result.size() ≠ 20).

🔁 How to Fix It:
→ Use System.runAs(user2) to simulate the Standard User.
→ Enclose the logic inside Test.startTest() and Test.stopTest() to ensure the governor limits are reset and asynchronous operations (if any) are executed in a controlled context.

📘 Updated Code Snippet (Conceptually):
System.runAs(user2) {
Test.startTest();
List result = AccountController.getAllAccounts();
Test.stopTest();
System.assertEquals(20, result.size());
}

This will correctly simulate user2’s context, and since all 20 accounts were inserted with user2's ownership, the query returns them.

❌ Why Other Options Are Incorrect

B — Add System.runAs(user1) and Test.startTest()

🔴 Why it's wrong:
→ Using user1, the System Administrator, would cause the controller to return all accounts — but your test specifically created 20 accounts tied to user2 (Standard User). Using user1 would not assert the intended user access model and defeats the purpose of testing sharing-based logic.

C — Query the Administrator and enclose lines 15–16 within System.runAs(user1)

🔴 Why it's wrong:
→ Running the test as a System Administrator means full access to all data, regardless of sharing rules. This doesn’t reflect the actual permissions of a Standard User and therefore doesn’t verify sharing behavior, which is the goal of this test.

D — Query Standard User into memory and use System.runAs(user2) in a @testSetup method

🟡 Partially valid idea, but:
→ You cannot use System.runAs() inside @testSetup methods — it will throw an error. According to Salesforce documentation, System.runAs() is only allowed inside test methods, not setup blocks.
→ The test data (like user2) should be created in @testSetup, but context simulation (System.runAs) must be handled in the test method itself.

Reference:
Using the runAs Method
Testing Best Practices