Pass the Adobe Experience Manager AD0-E137 Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

Cloud Manager’s Content Copy feature allows administrators to copy content from Production to non-production environments such as Stage or Development. This is intended to provide accurate and representative content for testing, QA, or UAT purposes. Content cannot be copied from Development or Integration to Stage, as Adobe enforces strict controls to prevent non-production content from contaminating Production or Stage environments. Option C is correct because Production is the only valid source environment for copying content to Stage. Adobe emphasizes that copying content from Production ensures consistency and valid test data while maintaining governance and security in AEMaaCS.

The Dispatcher should be configured to cache static pages like .html, but when query parameters are present (used for personalization, targeting, or dynamic rendering), the dispatcher must invalidate or bypass cache to prevent stale or incorrect content delivery.

Option A is correct → balances performance (cache static .html) and personalization (invalidate with query strings).

Option B is incorrect → POST requests should never be cached, as they modify content.

Option C is incorrect → disabling cache for all .html removes performance benefits.

Adobe Documentation:

“The dispatcher can be configured to cache .html responses while invalidating the cache when query string parameters are present. This ensures efficient caching while supporting personalization and dynamic content.”

— AEM Dispatcher Caching Guidelines

The most common performance pitfall in AEM development is failing to configure proper indexing strategies for queries. Without indexes, repository queries fall back to traversal queries, which can be extremely expensive and cause performance degradation as datasets grow. While recursion, static variables, or synchronized blocks may cause other issues, they are not specific to AEM’s architecture. Adobe explicitly advises that developers always analyze queries using the Query Debugger and ensure properties being queried are indexed. Proper indexing is critical for scalability in AEM environments with large volumes of content and digital assets.

Explanation (Adobe Docs Reference):

AEM supports basic multi-tenancy through separation by content paths, ACLs, and templates. However, this is not true multi-tenancy. For strict isolation with no code/content overlap, separate AEM instances per tenant is required. Adobe’s official recommendation for true isolation (zero cross-tenant knowledge or sharing) is to run dedicated AEM environments per tenant.

Adobe Documentation:

“AEM supports multi-tenancy by allowing separation of content trees, ACLs, and components. However, for strict tenant isolation (true multi-tenancy), each tenant must be deployed on separate AEM environments.”

— Adobe AEM Multi-tenancy Concepts

Run mode-specific configurations in AEM follow a strict naming convention under the osgiconfig folder. The folder structure defines both the run mode (author or publish) and the environment (e.g., dev, stage, uat, prod). For UAT author environments, the correct structure is config.author.uat. Option C follows this convention correctly. Option A and B use incorrect naming patterns, which would prevent AEM from loading the configuration under the desired run mode. Adobe emphasizes the importance of placing OSGi configs in the correct folder paths within the ui.apps project or ui.config project depending on deployment structure.

In AEM as a Cloud Service, multi-tenant projects can be managed via independent repositories linked to a primary project repository using git submodules. When a new tenant is added, the tenant’s repository must be registered as a submodule of the main project so that it is included in the CI/CD build and deployment pipelines.

From Adobe Documentation:

“When using independent repositories for tenant modules, these repositories must be referenced as git submodules in the main project repository. This ensures they are included in the Cloud Manager build and deployment process.”

— Adobe AEM as a Cloud Service – Multi-tenant Setup & Git Submodules

In AEM, multi-site management allows centralized content updates to be pushed across different localized or departmental sites. The “Partial” option on the rollout configuration ensures that only specific components or regions designated for shared updates are synchronized, while leaving local content intact. This fits the described requirement where a portion of each school’s homepage must receive university updates without affecting school-specific content. Option A, Experience Fragments, could be used but are better suited for shared fragments of design/content, not controlled rollout scenarios. Option C requires manual inheritance restoration per page, which is inefficient. Option D, implementing custom rollout logic, is not needed when the built-in “Partial Rollout” option fulfills the requirement. Adobe emphasizes using partial rollout in multi-site configurations to balance central control with localized autonomy.

When unit testing a service that depends on JCR queries, the best practice is to use mocking frameworks (such as Mockito) to mock the Query and QueryResult objects. The purpose of a unit test is to isolate the service under test and not rely on a real JCR repository or SlingContext persistence layer, which moves testing into integration testing territory. By mocking the Query object and using the when(...).thenReturn(...) pattern, developers can control query results and validate how the service behaves under different scenarios. This ensures that the test runs quickly, without dependency on repository setup or external data. Option B is incorrect because currentResource() is used in Sling Model tests rather than for query-driven services. Option C with SlingContext and JCR_OAK would be used in integration or functional tests, not in lightweight unit tests. Adobe documentation highlights that JCR queries should be mocked in unit tests to ensure isolation and speed.

The correct approach to display external API results using server-side rendering in AEM is to separate responsibilities across three layers. First, create an OSGi component that encapsulates the logic for making external API calls using an HTTP client. This ensures reusability and central management of integration code. Second, create a Sling Model that references this OSGi service. Sling Models provide a resource-adaptable layer that connects AEM components to backend services, making it easier to expose data to HTL scripts. Finally, bind this Sling Model to an AEM component, which displays the fetched data in server-rendered HTML. This is aligned with Adobe’s guidance that integration logic should be handled within OSGi services, with Sling Models bridging content and services for components. Options B and C incorrectly assign responsibilities to Servlets or components, which violates best practices for modularity.

Explanation (Adobe Docs Reference):

Replication agents in AEM are responsible for transferring content and digital assets from the author instance to the publish instance (or to other targets like Dispatcher flush agents). This ensures that authored and approved content becomes available on the public site.

Options B and C are incorrect:

User permissions are not replicated by agents; they are managed by user synchronization.

Core Components are provided via Maven dependencies and not transferred via replication agents.

Adobe Documentation:

“Replication agents are central to AEM; they are used to publish (activate) content from an author to a publish environment, or to clear content from the dispatcher cache.”

— AEM Replication Agents