I disagree. The wording is this: "In order to make the process of recording attendance information more efficient, workers must create an attendance record for each child and add the child to the record."
This to me suggests that they are NOT creating the new Attendance records from the Child record. In fact, it suggests they probably either use a quick create form from anywhere in the system OR perhaps sitting on the Child Attendance record list and clicking New each time a drop off happens, and then manually setting the Child lookup in either case. If this assumption is correct, then field mappings are NOT helpful, but Business Rules would be! A workflow is another possibility but I think they are looking for BRs here.
Actually, there is conflicting information in the case study (oh boy). The intake heading does indicate attendance records are created from a child record, while the Attendance section indicates they create the record and then add the child. I'm really not sure what the right answer is any more!
Yes Field Mapping is correct. There are 2 statements "Attendance records are created from a child record" and "Each (attendance) record includes a field to enter emergency contact information for the child. This field often remains blank". As Child-->Attendance is 1:N, and Attendance record is created from the Child record, the Emergency number field can be mapped
Going with Field Mapping here. I picked "Business Rule" as well but the terminology in question is very similar to the one used in guide. It's unfortunate that MSFT wants to test semantics, but just give them what they want.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/customerengagement/on-premises/customize/map-entity-fields
Field Mapping because in the case study it is written "Attendace records are created from the Child record" . So it means that 1: N relationship exists between Child and Attendance and the field mapping is generated automatically (i.e lookup of child on Attendance by default).
I am not sure what default values refers to here in this question.
An attendance record contains all attendance information/log for each child. Since their are multiple fields for each child in a child record (arrival-dep timings, who picked etc. + hidden additional info), it is 1:N relationship.
Field mapping sounds good.
I don't believe it's Field mapping since the records seems to be related as a lookup (create an attendance record for each child and add the child to the record: 1:1)>
To me it's Business Rule
You do not have 1 to 1 relationships in CRM. This is definitely a child (1) to N(attendance) relationship and therefore mapping.
upvoted 5 times
...
...
This section is not available anymore. Please use the main Exam Page.MB-200 Exam Questions
Log in to ExamTopics
Sign in:
Community vote distribution
A (35%)
C (25%)
B (20%)
Other
Most Voted
A voting comment increases the vote count for the chosen answer by one.
Upvoting a comment with a selected answer will also increase the vote count towards that answer by one.
So if you see a comment that you already agree with, you can upvote it instead of posting a new comment.
ning
Highly Voted 5 years, 9 months agoTobyN
5 years, 9 months agoKAL18
5 years, 8 months agoSoMuchConfusion
5 years, 7 months agoSoMuchConfusion
5 years, 7 months agoNyanne
4 years, 10 months agoceejaybee
5 years, 8 months agospokoloko
Highly Voted 5 years, 10 months agoThe12Anonym
5 years, 2 months agoAB_12
Most Recent 4 years, 11 months agojyotyada
4 years, 11 months agomeg111111111111
4 years, 11 months agoamnajalal
5 years, 3 months agoAyeenm
5 years, 6 months agoSuchi
5 years, 10 months agoFyrus
5 years, 10 months agoHendrikdb
5 years ago