Amazon AWS SAA-C03 Event-Driven Architectures, APIs, Queues, Messaging, and Workflow Orchestration Practice Test 2

 

Topic 07 Practice Test 2 covers Event-Driven Architectures, APIs, Queues, Messaging, and Workflow Orchestration for AWS SAA-C03. For broader exam preparation, review the AWS SAA-C03 Exam Dumps. Every option includes focused technical reasoning explaining both the AWS architecture concept and its fit to the scenario.

Question 1

An operations platform currently polls several AWS services for state changes. The team wants matching change events pushed to a handler only when selected fields meet a rule. Which design choice best replace polling with structured event-pattern matching and push delivery? Choose ONE.

1. Amazon SNS standard topic
2. SQS long polling
3. EventBridge event pattern filtering
4. EventBridge Scheduler

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. Amazon SNS standard topic fans each publication out to multiple subscribed endpoints and is suited to broad pub/sub delivery when strict FIFO semantics are unnecessary. Here, An operations platform currently polls several…. The design must replace polling with structured event-pattern matching and push…. It targets a different integration concern.
2. SQS long polling waits for messages across SQS servers, reducing empty receives and false empty responses compared with short polling. Here, An operations platform currently polls several…. The design must replace polling with structured event-pattern matching and push…. It does not implement the needed control.
3. EventBridge event pattern filtering matches only events whose structured fields satisfy the rule pattern, avoiding consumer-side polling and discard logic. Here, An operations platform currently polls several…. The design must replace polling with structured event-pattern matching and push…. That preserves the intended asynchronous design.
4. EventBridge Scheduler invokes a target at a specified one-time or recurring schedule and is suited to scheduled rather than event-pattern triggers. Here, An operations platform currently polls several…. The design must replace polling with structured event-pattern matching and push…. That choice would not deliver the required semantics.

 

Question 2

A compliance job must run at 02:00 UTC on the first day of every month and invoke a Lambda function even when no business event occurs. Which design choice best invoke a target on a calendar schedule rather than waiting for an event pattern? Choose ONE.

1. EventBridge Scheduler
2. Step Functions Wait state
3. EventBridge event bus with content-based rules
4. SQS delay queue or message timer

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. EventBridge Scheduler invokes a target at a specified one-time or recurring schedule and is suited to scheduled rather than event-pattern triggers. Here, A compliance job must run at…. The design must invoke a target on a calendar schedule rather…. That capability resolves the key constraint.
2. Step Functions Wait state pauses workflow progress until a duration or timestamp without keeping compute running during the delay. Here, A compliance job must run at…. The design must invoke a target on a calendar schedule rather…. It is related but not the direct mechanism.
3. EventBridge event bus with content-based rules routes matching events by fields in the event pattern and can send matched events to AWS or cross-account targets. Here, A compliance job must run at…. The design must invoke a target on a calendar schedule rather…. Its native function does not fit this scenario.
4. SQS delay queue or message timer defers visibility of newly sent standard-queue messages for a configured delay without running a separate scheduler. Here, A compliance job must run at…. The design must invoke a target on a calendar schedule rather…. Another service owns the behavior being tested.

 

Question 3

An EventBridge rule retries a target but occasionally exhausts retries because the target is unavailable. Operators need the undelivered events retained for later analysis. Which design choice best capture events that a rule cannot deliver after its retry policy is exhausted? Choose ONE.

1. EventBridge archive and replay
2. SQS dead-letter queue with redrive policy
3. Amazon SQS standard queue
4. EventBridge target dead-letter queue

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. EventBridge archive and replay stores selected events from one event bus and can later replay a chosen time range back to that source bus. Here, An EventBridge rule retries a target…. The design must capture events that a rule cannot deliver after…. The scenario needs a capability this choice does not supply.
2. SQS dead-letter queue with redrive policy isolates messages that exceed a configured receive count so persistent failures can be inspected and later redriven. Here, An EventBridge rule retries a target…. The design must capture events that a rule cannot deliver after…. The requirement calls for different managed-service semantics.
3. Amazon SQS standard queue provides a durable asynchronous buffer that decouples senders from receivers and lets workers process messages at their own pace. Here, An EventBridge rule retries a target…. The design must capture events that a rule cannot deliver after…. That option would not change the behavior that matters here.
4. EventBridge target dead-letter queue captures events that EventBridge cannot successfully deliver to a target after its retry policy is exhausted. Here, An EventBridge rule retries a target…. The design must capture events that a rule cannot deliver after…. That choice fits the resilience objective.

 

Question 4

A trading platform must publish each transaction to two downstream queues. Both subscribers require transaction order and duplicate suppression. Which design choice best fan ordered deduplicated publications to multiple FIFO queue subscribers? Choose ONE.

1. Amazon SQS FIFO queue
2. SNS FIFO topic with SQS FIFO subscriptions
3. Amazon SNS standard topic
4. SNS topic with separate SQS subscriptions

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. Amazon SQS FIFO queue preserves order within message groups and provides deduplication controls for workloads that cannot tolerate reordering. Here, A trading platform must publish each…. The design must fan ordered deduplicated publications to multiple FIFO queue…. This would not produce the routing or control outcome requested.
2. SNS FIFO topic with SQS FIFO subscriptions fans ordered, deduplicated messages to FIFO queues when downstream consumers need ordered near-real-time delivery. Here, A trading platform must publish each…. The design must fan ordered deduplicated publications to multiple FIFO queue…. That preserves the intended asynchronous design.
3. Amazon SNS standard topic implements managed publish/subscribe fan-out so one published message can be pushed to many independently configured subscriptions. Here, A trading platform must publish each…. The design must fan ordered deduplicated publications to multiple FIFO queue…. It solves a related problem, not this requirement.
4. SNS topic with separate SQS subscriptions gives each consumer its own durable backlog while a single publication is fanned out to all subscribed queues. Here, A trading platform must publish each…. The design must fan ordered deduplicated publications to multiple FIFO queue…. It cannot directly provide the delivery behavior being selected.

 

Question 5

A product event must be consumed independently by billing and search indexing. Each consumer can tolerate duplicates but must keep its own backlog during outages. Which design choice best combine pub/sub fan-out with durable independent queue backlogs for each consumer? Choose ONE.

1. Amazon SQS standard queue
2. EventBridge input transformer
3. Amazon SNS standard topic
4. SNS topic with separate SQS subscriptions

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. Amazon SQS standard queue supports scalable asynchronous work queues without FIFO ordering guarantees, allowing many producers and consumers to operate independently. Here, A product event must be consumed…. The design must combine pub/sub fan-out with durable independent queue backlogs…. It can complement the design but not satisfy this need.
2. EventBridge input transformer selects and reshapes fields from an event into the payload expected by a target without a transformation Lambda function. Here, A product event must be consumed…. The design must combine pub/sub fan-out with durable independent queue backlogs…. Its semantics differ from the required behavior.
3. Amazon SNS standard topic broadcasts notifications to multiple subscribers and supports several endpoint types without creating a durable work backlog by itself. Here, A product event must be consumed…. The design must combine pub/sub fan-out with durable independent queue backlogs…. Its behavior does not match the requested outcome.
4. SNS topic with separate SQS subscriptions gives each consumer its own durable backlog while a single publication is fanned out to all subscribed queues. Here, A product event must be consumed…. The design must combine pub/sub fan-out with durable independent queue backlogs…. That is the strongest native fit.

 

Question 6

A producer times out after sending to a FIFO queue and retries the same business command. It can generate and persist an idempotency token for each command. Which design choice best use the producer’s business token to suppress duplicate FIFO sends during the deduplication window? Choose ONE.

1. SQS visibility timeout
2. SQS message deduplication ID
3. SQS content-based deduplication
4. SQS FIFO message group IDs

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. SQS visibility timeout sets the temporary processing lock for received queue messages and therefore affects duplicate work and failure recovery time. Here, A producer times out after sending…. The design must use the producer’s business token to suppress duplicate…. It lacks the specific behavior required.
2. SQS message deduplication ID lets a FIFO producer supply a token so retries inside the deduplication interval do not enqueue another copy. Here, A producer times out after sending…. The design must use the producer’s business token to suppress duplicate…. It matches the required delivery semantics.
3. SQS content-based deduplication derives a FIFO deduplication token from the message body hash, not from message attributes. Here, A producer times out after sending…. The design must use the producer’s business token to suppress duplicate…. It is plausible here but solves a different problem.
4. SQS FIFO message group IDs serialize messages within each group while allowing separate groups to be processed independently and concurrently. Here, A producer times out after sending…. The design must use the producer’s business token to suppress duplicate…. Its purpose is adjacent rather than directly applicable.

 

Question 7

A FIFO producer cannot supply stable deduplication tokens. The message body is identical for retries, while only message attributes such as trace IDs vary. Which design choice best derive FIFO duplicate detection from the message body instead of producer-supplied identifiers? Choose ONE.

1. SQS content-based deduplication
2. SQS message deduplication ID
3. Amazon SQS standard queue
4. SNS subscription filter policy

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. SQS content-based deduplication derives a FIFO deduplication token from the message body hash, not from message attributes. Here, A FIFO producer cannot supply stable…. The design must derive FIFO duplicate detection from the message body…. That preserves the intended asynchronous design.
2. SQS message deduplication ID lets a FIFO producer supply a token so retries inside the deduplication interval do not enqueue another copy. Here, A FIFO producer cannot supply stable…. The design must derive FIFO duplicate detection from the message body…. It does not implement the needed control.
3. Amazon SQS standard queue stores messages durably so independent consumers can absorb variable producer rates with at-least-once delivery and very high throughput. Here, A FIFO producer cannot supply stable…. The design must derive FIFO duplicate detection from the message body…. That choice would not deliver the required semantics.
4. SNS subscription filter policy evaluates message attributes or JSON message bodies per subscription so each subscriber receives only its matching subset. Here, A FIFO producer cannot supply stable…. The design must derive FIFO duplicate detection from the message body…. It targets a different integration concern.

 

Question 8

After a bad deployment is fixed, engineers want to move failed jobs from an SQS dead-letter queue back to the processing path without republishing each message manually. Which design choice best return quarantined SQS messages for processing after the underlying defect is corrected? Choose ONE.

1. SQS long polling
2. EventBridge archive and replay
3. SQS dead-letter queue redrive
4. SQS message retention period

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. SQS long polling waits for messages across SQS servers, reducing empty receives and false empty responses compared with short polling. Here, After a bad deployment is fixed…. The design must return quarantined SQS messages for processing after the…. This mechanism is not responsible for the requested property.
2. EventBridge archive and replay stores selected events from one event bus and can later replay a chosen time range back to that source bus. Here, After a bad deployment is fixed…. The design must return quarantined SQS messages for processing after the…. It is related but not the direct mechanism.
3. SQS dead-letter queue redrive moves selected messages from a DLQ back toward a source or another queue after the underlying defect is corrected. Here, After a bad deployment is fixed…. The design must return quarantined SQS messages for processing after the…. That is the strongest native fit.
4. SQS message retention period controls how long unconsumed messages remain available in a queue before SQS deletes them. Here, After a bad deployment is fixed…. The design must return quarantined SQS messages for processing after the…. Its native function does not fit this scenario.

 

Question 9

Several teams consume custom EventBridge events and repeatedly hand-code payload models as producers add fields. They want discovered event structures, versioned schemas, and generated language bindings without changing event routing. Which design choice best make event contracts discoverable and generate typed bindings for consumers? Choose ONE.

1. EventBridge event pattern filtering
2. EventBridge Schema Registry and discovery
3. EventBridge input transformer
4. EventBridge archive and replay

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. EventBridge event pattern filtering matches only events whose structured fields satisfy the rule pattern, avoiding consumer-side polling and discard logic. Here, Consumers need discovered versioned event structures…. The design must make event contracts discoverable and generate typed bindings…. The requirement calls for different managed-service semantics.
2. EventBridge Schema Registry and discovery can infer schemas from event bus traffic, version discovered schemas as events change, and provide downloadable code bindings. Here, Consumers need discovered versioned event structures…. The design must make event contracts discoverable and generate typed bindings…. That is the appropriate managed mechanism.
3. EventBridge input transformer selects and reshapes fields from an event into the payload expected by a target without a transformation Lambda function. Here, Consumers need discovered versioned event structures…. The design must make event contracts discoverable and generate typed bindings…. Its operating model does not satisfy the decisive constraint.
4. EventBridge archive and replay stores selected events from one event bus and can later replay a chosen time range back to that source bus. Here, Consumers need discovered versioned event structures…. The design must make event contracts discoverable and generate typed bindings…. The scenario needs a capability this choice does not supply.

 

Question 10

Most SQS tasks finish in two minutes, but a small percentage need ten minutes. Workers can detect slow tasks and should extend only those messages while they continue processing. Which design choice best extend an individual in-flight message’s invisibility when runtime exceeds the initial estimate? Choose ONE.

1. SQS delay queue or message timer
2. SQS message retention period
3. SQS long polling
4. ChangeMessageVisibility

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. SQS delay queue or message timer defers visibility of newly sent standard-queue messages for a configured delay without running a separate scheduler. Here, Most SQS tasks finish in two…. The design must extend an individual in-flight message’s invisibility when runtime…. This would not produce the routing or control outcome requested.
2. SQS message retention period controls how long unconsumed messages remain available in a queue before SQS deletes them. Here, Most SQS tasks finish in two…. The design must extend an individual in-flight message’s invisibility when runtime…. It cannot directly provide the delivery behavior being selected.
3. SQS long polling waits for messages across SQS servers, reducing empty receives and false empty responses compared with short polling. Here, Most SQS tasks finish in two…. The design must extend an individual in-flight message’s invisibility when runtime…. It solves a related problem, not this requirement.
4. ChangeMessageVisibility extends or changes the invisibility period for an in-flight SQS message whose processing time differs from the default. Here, Most SQS tasks finish in two…. The design must extend an individual in-flight message’s invisibility when runtime…. That preserves the intended asynchronous design.

 

Question 11

A public developer API needs different monthly quotas and throttling limits for bronze, silver, and gold consumers identified by API keys. Which design choice best apply per-client metering and throttling to API consumers? Choose ONE.

1. API Gateway HTTP API
2. API Gateway WebSocket API
3. REST API usage plan and API key
4. HTTP API JWT authorizer

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. API Gateway HTTP API offers a lower-cost RESTful frontend with built-in JWT authorizers, OIDC support, CORS, and automatic deployments. Here, A public developer API needs different…. The design must apply per-client metering and throttling to API consumers. It can complement the design but not satisfy this need.
2. API Gateway WebSocket API maintains stateful two-way client connections so backends can push messages through connection callbacks. Here, A public developer API needs different…. The design must apply per-client metering and throttling to API consumers. Its semantics differ from the required behavior.
3. REST API usage plan and API key meters and throttles identified REST API clients with usage-plan quotas and per-client request limits. Here, A public developer API needs different…. The design must apply per-client metering and throttling to API consumers. That behavior matches the scenario.
4. HTTP API JWT authorizer validates JWT access tokens for an HTTP API using issuer and audience information without a custom Lambda authorizer. Here, A public developer API needs different…. The design must apply per-client metering and throttling to API consumers. It addresses a neighboring concern instead.

 

Question 12

Internal services in private subnets must call an API Gateway endpoint through VPC endpoints, and the API must not be publicly reachable. Which design choice best expose API Gateway only through private VPC connectivity? Choose ONE.

1. API Gateway private REST API
2. EventBridge API destination
3. API Gateway HTTP API
4. API Gateway WebSocket API

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. API Gateway private REST API exposes a REST API through interface VPC endpoints so it can be invoked without public internet reachability. Here, Internal services in private subnets must…. The design must expose API Gateway only through private VPC connectivity. It provides the requested workflow behavior.
2. EventBridge API destination delivers matching events to an HTTPS endpoint using a managed connection and configured authentication. Here, Internal services in private subnets must…. The design must expose API Gateway only through private VPC connectivity. Its purpose is adjacent rather than directly applicable.
3. API Gateway HTTP API offers a lower-cost RESTful frontend with built-in JWT authorizers, OIDC support, CORS, and automatic deployments. Here, Internal services in private subnets must…. The design must expose API Gateway only through private VPC connectivity. It would leave the controlling constraint unresolved.
4. API Gateway WebSocket API maintains stateful two-way client connections so backends can push messages through connection callbacks. Here, Internal services in private subnets must…. The design must expose API Gateway only through private VPC connectivity. It is plausible here but solves a different problem.

 

Question 13

A SaaS backend accepts access tokens issued by an OpenID Connect provider. The team wants API Gateway to validate issuer and audience without invoking a custom authorizer function. Which design choice best validate OAuth/OIDC JSON Web Tokens natively at the API edge? Choose ONE.

1. HTTP API JWT authorizer
2. API Gateway private REST API
3. API Gateway WebSocket API
4. REST API usage plan and API key

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. HTTP API JWT authorizer validates JWT access tokens for an HTTP API using issuer and audience information without a custom Lambda authorizer. Here, A SaaS backend accepts access tokens…. The design must validate OAuth/OIDC JSON Web Tokens natively at the…. It delivers the required integration behavior.
2. API Gateway private REST API exposes a REST API through interface VPC endpoints so it can be invoked without public internet reachability. Here, A SaaS backend accepts access tokens…. The design must validate OAuth/OIDC JSON Web Tokens natively at the…. It does not implement the needed control.
3. API Gateway WebSocket API maintains stateful two-way client connections so backends can push messages through connection callbacks. Here, A SaaS backend accepts access tokens…. The design must validate OAuth/OIDC JSON Web Tokens natively at the…. The service is valid, but not for this decision.
4. REST API usage plan and API key meters and throttles identified REST API clients with usage-plan quotas and per-client request limits. Here, A SaaS backend accepts access tokens…. The design must validate OAuth/OIDC JSON Web Tokens natively at the…. That choice would not deliver the required semantics.

 

Question 14

A collaborative whiteboard uses one persistent connection per browser. Incoming messages contain an action field that should select different backend integrations. Which design choice best route bidirectional WebSocket messages to backends according to message content? Choose ONE.

1. SNS subscription filter policy
2. API Gateway HTTP API
3. WebSocket custom routes
4. EventBridge event pattern filtering

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. SNS subscription filter policy evaluates message attributes or JSON message bodies per subscription so each subscriber receives only its matching subset. Here, A collaborative whiteboard uses one persistent…. The design must route bidirectional WebSocket messages to backends according to…. It is related but not the direct mechanism.
2. API Gateway HTTP API offers a lower-cost RESTful frontend with built-in JWT authorizers, OIDC support, CORS, and automatic deployments. Here, A collaborative whiteboard uses one persistent…. The design must route bidirectional WebSocket messages to backends according to…. This mechanism is not responsible for the requested property.
3. WebSocket custom routes select backend integrations from incoming WebSocket message content while preserving the persistent client connection. Here, A collaborative whiteboard uses one persistent…. The design must route bidirectional WebSocket messages to backends according to…. It directly satisfies the design need.
4. EventBridge event pattern filtering matches only events whose structured fields satisfy the rule pattern, avoiding consumer-side polling and discard logic. Here, A collaborative whiteboard uses one persistent…. The design must route bidirectional WebSocket messages to backends according to…. Another service owns the behavior being tested.

 

Question 15

A state machine submits a non-idempotent settlement operation. The workflow itself must not execute more than once unless the definition explicitly retries a failed state. Which design choice best use an orchestration type with exactly-once workflow execution for non-idempotent actions? Choose ONE.

1. Step Functions Express Workflow
2. Step Functions Standard Workflow
3. EventBridge event bus with content-based rules
4. Amazon SQS standard queue

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. Step Functions Express Workflow supports high-volume short-running orchestration and uses an at-least-once model for asynchronous executions. Here, A state machine submits a non-idempotent…. The design must use an orchestration type with exactly-once workflow execution…. The scenario needs a capability this choice does not supply.
2. Step Functions Standard Workflow provides durable, auditable long-running orchestration with exactly-once workflow execution semantics unless retries are configured. Here, A state machine submits a non-idempotent…. The design must use an orchestration type with exactly-once workflow execution…. That choice fits the resilience objective.
3. EventBridge event bus with content-based rules routes matching events by fields in the event pattern and can send matched events to AWS or cross-account targets. Here, A state machine submits a non-idempotent…. The design must use an orchestration type with exactly-once workflow execution…. The requirement calls for different managed-service semantics.
4. Amazon SQS standard queue provides a durable asynchronous buffer that decouples senders from receivers and lets workers process messages at their own pace. Here, A state machine submits a non-idempotent…. The design must use an orchestration type with exactly-once workflow execution…. That option would not change the behavior that matters here.

 

Question 16

A clickstream pipeline needs orchestration for thousands of independent, idempotent events per second. Every workflow completes in under 30 seconds. Which design choice best favor the Step Functions type optimized for high-volume short event-processing workloads? Choose ONE.

1. Step Functions Run a Job integration
2. Step Functions callback with task token
3. Step Functions Standard Workflow
4. Step Functions Express Workflow

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. Step Functions Run a Job integration starts a supported service job and waits for that job to complete before advancing the state machine. Here, A clickstream pipeline needs orchestration for…. The design must favor the Step Functions type optimized for high-volume…. The component serves another purpose in the architecture.
2. Step Functions callback with task token pauses a Standard workflow until an external actor returns the task token, fitting human or external-system callbacks. Here, A clickstream pipeline needs orchestration for…. The design must favor the Step Functions type optimized for high-volume…. This would not produce the routing or control outcome requested.
3. Step Functions Standard Workflow provides durable, auditable long-running orchestration with exactly-once workflow execution semantics unless retries are configured. Here, A clickstream pipeline needs orchestration for…. The design must favor the Step Functions type optimized for high-volume…. It solves a related problem, not this requirement.
4. Step Functions Express Workflow supports high-volume short-running orchestration and uses an at-least-once model for asynchronous executions. Here, A clickstream pipeline needs orchestration for…. The design must favor the Step Functions type optimized for high-volume…. It delivers the required integration behavior.

 

Question 17

A workflow invokes an unreliable third-party processing task. Transient failures should be retried with backoff, then routed to a compensation branch if retries are exhausted. Which design choice best express retry behavior and fallback routing directly in the state machine? Choose ONE.

1. SQS dead-letter queue with redrive policy
2. EventBridge target dead-letter queue
3. Step Functions Retry and Catch
4. Step Functions Wait state

Correct Answer(s)

 

C

Rationale

1. SQS dead-letter queue with redrive policy isolates messages that exceed a configured receive count so persistent failures can be inspected and later redriven. Here, A workflow invokes an unreliable third-party…. The design must express retry behavior and fallback routing directly in…. It addresses a neighboring concern instead.
2. EventBridge target dead-letter queue captures events that EventBridge cannot successfully deliver to a target after its retry policy is exhausted. Here, A workflow invokes an unreliable third-party…. The design must express retry behavior and fallback routing directly in…. Its semantics differ from the required behavior.
3. Step Functions Retry and Catch handles transient task failures with defined retry policies and routes exhausted failures to explicit fallback states. Here, A workflow invokes an unreliable third-party…. The design must express retry behavior and fallback routing directly in…. That behavior matches the scenario.
4. Step Functions Wait state pauses workflow progress until a duration or timestamp without keeping compute running during the delay. Here, A workflow invokes an unreliable third-party…. The design must express retry behavior and fallback routing directly in…. It can complement the design but not satisfy this need.

 

Question 18

A CRM vendor exposes an authenticated HTTPS endpoint. Selected order events should be delivered there directly from EventBridge without a custom relay service. Which design choice best deliver matched events to an external HTTPS endpoint using managed authentication? Choose ONE.

1. EventBridge API destination
2. Amazon SNS standard topic
3. API Gateway HTTP API
4. Amazon EventBridge Pipes

Correct Answer(s)

 

A

Rationale

1. EventBridge API destination delivers matching events to an HTTPS endpoint using a managed connection and configured authentication. Here, A CRM vendor exposes an authenticated…. The design must deliver matched events to an external HTTPS endpoint…. It provides the requested workflow behavior.
2. Amazon SNS standard topic fans each publication out to multiple subscribed endpoints and is suited to broad pub/sub delivery when strict FIFO semantics are unnecessary. Here, A CRM vendor exposes an authenticated…. The design must deliver matched events to an external HTTPS endpoint…. It is plausible here but solves a different problem.
3. API Gateway HTTP API offers a lower-cost RESTful frontend with built-in JWT authorizers, OIDC support, CORS, and automatic deployments. Here, A CRM vendor exposes an authenticated…. The design must deliver matched events to an external HTTPS endpoint…. Its purpose is adjacent rather than directly applicable.
4. Amazon EventBridge Pipes connects a supported source to one target with optional filtering, transformation, batching, and synchronous enrichment. Here, A CRM vendor exposes an authenticated…. The design must deliver matched events to an external HTTPS endpoint…. It would leave the controlling constraint unresolved.

 

Question 19

An EventBridge rule receives a large AWS event, but the target accepts only customerId, status, and timestamp in a different JSON shape. No enrichment lookup is required. Which design choice best reshape selected event fields into the target payload without custom compute? Choose ONE.

1. EventBridge Pipes Lambda enrichment
2. SNS message-body filter policy
3. Step Functions Choice state
4. EventBridge input transformer

Correct Answer(s)

 

D

Rationale

1. EventBridge Pipes Lambda enrichment invokes Lambda synchronously to add or look up information before a pipe sends the resulting payload to its target. Here, An EventBridge rule receives a large…. The design must reshape selected event fields into the target payload…. The service is valid, but not for this decision.
2. SNS message-body filter policy matches fields inside a well-formed JSON message body so a subscription can reject irrelevant publications. Here, An EventBridge rule receives a large…. The design must reshape selected event fields into the target payload…. It does not implement the needed control.
3. Step Functions Choice state branches execution based on data conditions in workflow state without invoking compute just to evaluate routing logic. Here, An EventBridge rule receives a large…. The design must reshape selected event fields into the target payload…. That choice would not deliver the required semantics.
4. EventBridge input transformer selects and reshapes fields from an event into the payload expected by a target without a transformation Lambda function. Here, An EventBridge rule receives a large…. The design must reshape selected event fields into the target payload…. It delivers the required integration behavior.

 

Question 20

SQS messages contain only a customer ID, while a target requires customer tier and region. The team wants a managed pipe that calls Lambda to look up those fields before target delivery. Which design choice best enrich pipe records synchronously before they are sent to the target? Choose ONE.

1. EventBridge Pipe input transformation
2. EventBridge Pipes Lambda enrichment
3. EventBridge input transformer
4. Amazon SQS standard queue

Correct Answer(s)

 

B

Rationale

1. EventBridge Pipe input transformation reshapes source or enriched data inside a pipe before sending it to the target, avoiding custom glue code. Here, SQS messages contain only a customer…. The design must enrich pipe records synchronously before they are sent…. This mechanism is not responsible for the requested property.
2. EventBridge Pipes Lambda enrichment invokes Lambda synchronously to add or look up information before a pipe sends the resulting payload to its target. Here, SQS messages contain only a customer…. The design must enrich pipe records synchronously before they are sent…. It directly satisfies the design need.
3. EventBridge input transformer selects and reshapes fields from an event into the payload expected by a target without a transformation Lambda function. Here, SQS messages contain only a customer…. The design must enrich pipe records synchronously before they are sent…. It is related but not the direct mechanism.
4. Amazon SQS standard queue supports scalable asynchronous work queues without FIFO ordering guarantees, allowing many producers and consumers to operate independently. Here, SQS messages contain only a customer…. The design must enrich pipe records synchronously before they are sent…. Another service owns the behavior being tested.

• < Amazon AWS SAA-C03 Event-Driven Architectures, APIs, Queues, Messaging, and Workflow Orchestration Practice Test 1
• Amazon AWS SAA-C03 Event-Driven Architectures, APIs, Queues, Messaging, and Workflow Orchestration Practice Test 3 >