Exam Bundle

That observation is a valid indicator for “A workspace notebook differs from the deployed Git commit unexpectedly” when using Synchronize or redeploy from the canonical reviewed Git revision. The scenario instead tests “Different branches have conflicting deployment names in a shared dev workspace”; the relevant result is Two developers can deploy their bundles without overwriting each other's resources.

This signal belongs to the adjacent case “A CI workflow must deploy resource definitions across an approved target workspace,” whose remedy is Use `databricks bundle deploy` with explicit target and credentials. The observed result for the present requirement is Two developers can deploy their bundles without overwriting each other's resources.

Only resources tracked by the selected deployment are removed as expected would demonstrate the separate action Use supported bundle destroy/remove workflow for the correct target after review, which addresses “An unwanted test resource from a bundle should be deleted under controlled lifecycle.” It does not verify the requirement “Different branches have conflicting deployment names in a shared dev workspace” following Use development targets with isolate-friendly naming or resource prefixes.

The alternative Redeploy the last validated version/tag from Git has a distinct purpose—A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback. It would not establish the required outcome (A production notebook change must be peer-reviewed before deployment); the necessary verification concerns Only approved merged commits enter the deployment branch.

The alternative Synchronize or redeploy from the canonical reviewed Git revision has a distinct purpose—A workspace notebook differs from the deployed Git commit unexpectedly. It would not establish the required outcome (A production notebook change must be peer-reviewed before deployment); the necessary verification concerns Only approved merged commits enter the deployment branch.

Remove secret use, rotate credentials and replace them with secret references belongs to the separate case “A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history,” where The current deployment no longer contains the secret and the old credential is revoked would be expected. That differs from the condition in this stem: “A production notebook change must be peer-reviewed before deployment.”

This signal belongs to the adjacent case “A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback,” whose remedy is Redeploy the last validated version/tag from Git. The observed result for the present requirement is Only approved merged commits enter the deployment branch.

Feature changes run without modifying the production branch pertains to a different control (Use an isolated Git branch or workspace Git folder checkout) and a different need (A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code). It cannot establish that Use a Git-backed branch and pull-request review workflow met the stated goal.

That observation is a valid indicator for “A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history” when using Remove secret use, rotate credentials and replace them with secret references. The scenario instead tests “A production notebook change must be peer-reviewed before deployment”; the relevant result is Only approved merged commits enter the deployment branch.

This action solves a different issue: “A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code.” Its normal signal is Feature changes run without modifying the production branch. Here the requested behavior is “A workspace notebook differs from the deployed Git commit unexpectedly,” so that signal is not sufficient.

This action solves a different issue: “A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback.” Its normal signal is Production resources run the known-good code version again. Here the requested behavior is “A workspace notebook differs from the deployed Git commit unexpectedly,” so that signal is not sufficient.

This action solves a different issue: “A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history.” Its normal signal is The current deployment no longer contains the secret and the old credential is revoked. Here the requested behavior is “A workspace notebook differs from the deployed Git commit unexpectedly,” so that signal is not sufficient.

Feature changes run without modifying the production branch pertains to a different control (Use an isolated Git branch or workspace Git folder checkout) and a different need (A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code). It cannot establish that Synchronize or redeploy from the canonical reviewed Git revision met the stated goal.

Production resources run the known-good code version again would demonstrate the separate action Redeploy the last validated version/tag from Git, which addresses “A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback.” It does not verify the requirement “A workspace notebook differs from the deployed Git commit unexpectedly” following Synchronize or redeploy from the canonical reviewed Git revision.

This signal belongs to the adjacent case “A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history,” whose remedy is Remove secret use, rotate credentials and replace them with secret references. The observed result for the present requirement is Notebook content and deployment metadata match the approved commit.

The alternative Remove secret use, rotate credentials and replace them with secret references has a distinct purpose—A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history. It would not establish the required outcome (A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code); the necessary verification concerns Feature changes run without modifying the production branch.

Synchronize or redeploy from the canonical reviewed Git revision is appropriate when “A workspace notebook differs from the deployed Git commit unexpectedly”; it would be verified by Notebook content and deployment metadata match the approved commit. It does not directly satisfy “A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code,” whose relevant acceptance evidence is Feature changes run without modifying the production branch.

Redeploy the last validated version/tag from Git is appropriate when “A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback”; it would be verified by Production resources run the known-good code version again. It does not directly satisfy “A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code,” whose relevant acceptance evidence is Feature changes run without modifying the production branch.

This signal belongs to the adjacent case “A workspace notebook differs from the deployed Git commit unexpectedly,” whose remedy is Synchronize or redeploy from the canonical reviewed Git revision. The observed result for the present requirement is Feature changes run without modifying the production branch.

The current deployment no longer contains the secret and the old credential is revoked would demonstrate the separate action Remove secret use, rotate credentials and replace them with secret references, which addresses “A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history.” It does not verify the requirement “A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code” following Use an isolated Git branch or workspace Git folder checkout.

That observation is a valid indicator for “A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback” when using Redeploy the last validated version/tag from Git. The scenario instead tests “A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code”; the relevant result is Feature changes run without modifying the production branch.

Use a Git-backed branch and pull-request review workflow is appropriate when “A production notebook change must be peer-reviewed before deployment”; it would be verified by Only approved merged commits enter the deployment branch. It does not directly satisfy “A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback,” whose relevant acceptance evidence is Production resources run the known-good code version again.

Use an isolated Git branch or workspace Git folder checkout belongs to the separate case “A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code,” where Feature changes run without modifying the production branch would be expected. That differs from the condition in this stem: “A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback.”

Remove secret use, rotate credentials and replace them with secret references belongs to the separate case “A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history,” where The current deployment no longer contains the secret and the old credential is revoked would be expected. That differs from the condition in this stem: “A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback.”

Notebook content and deployment metadata match the approved commit pertains to a different control (Synchronize or redeploy from the canonical reviewed Git revision) and a different need (A workspace notebook differs from the deployed Git commit unexpectedly). It cannot establish that Redeploy the last validated version/tag from Git met the stated goal.

The current deployment no longer contains the secret and the old credential is revoked pertains to a different control (Remove secret use, rotate credentials and replace them with secret references) and a different need (A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history). It cannot establish that Redeploy the last validated version/tag from Git met the stated goal.

Feature changes run without modifying the production branch pertains to a different control (Use an isolated Git branch or workspace Git folder checkout) and a different need (A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code). It cannot establish that Redeploy the last validated version/tag from Git met the stated goal.

This action solves a different issue: “A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback.” Its normal signal is Production resources run the known-good code version again. Here the requested behavior is “A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history,” so that signal is not sufficient.

This action solves a different issue: “A production notebook change must be peer-reviewed before deployment.” Its normal signal is Only approved merged commits enter the deployment branch. Here the requested behavior is “A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history,” so that signal is not sufficient.

The alternative Use an isolated Git branch or workspace Git folder checkout has a distinct purpose—A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code. It would not establish the required outcome (A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history); the necessary verification concerns The current deployment no longer contains the secret and the old credential is revoked.

This signal belongs to the adjacent case “A production notebook change must be peer-reviewed before deployment,” whose remedy is Use a Git-backed branch and pull-request review workflow. The observed result for the present requirement is The current deployment no longer contains the secret and the old credential is revoked.

That observation is a valid indicator for “A developer needs to test a feature branch without modifying production code” when using Use an isolated Git branch or workspace Git folder checkout. The scenario instead tests “A notebook has hard-coded secrets checked into Git history”; the relevant result is The current deployment no longer contains the secret and the old credential is revoked.

Production resources run the known-good code version again pertains to a different control (Redeploy the last validated version/tag from Git) and a different need (A production change introduces a regression and the team needs rollback). It cannot establish that Remove secret use, rotate credentials and replace them with secret references met the stated goal.