C_CPI Integration Suite Development Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✗

  Exactly Once with the receiver configured to always return HTTP 200 on the first attempt

  Why it's wrong here

  Forcing a success response does not address duplicate suppression; if the flow retries because of a lost acknowledgment, the receiver could process the same message twice while returning 200. Exactly Once depends on the receiver being idempotent, so returning a canned success code does not provide the required no-duplicate guarantee.

• ✗

  At Least Once with a unique correlation ID header added by a Content Modifier

  Why it's wrong here

  At Least Once guarantees delivery but explicitly permits duplicates when retries occur, and merely adding a correlation ID header does not make the receiver idempotent unless it acts on that header. Since the requirement forbids duplicates, At Least Once alone is insufficient regardless of the header added by the Content Modifier.

• ✗

  Best Effort with a retry count of three on the receiver channel

  Why it's wrong here

  Best Effort provides no persistence guarantee and can lose messages; adding a retry count increases attempts but does not ensure exactly-once delivery and can itself create duplicates if the first call succeeded but the acknowledgment was lost. It therefore cannot satisfy the requirement that the message be delivered exactly once without duplicates.

• ✓

  Exactly Once with an idempotent receiver that detects and discards duplicate message IDs

  Why this is correct

  Exactly Once quality of service persists the message and, on retry, resends it with the same message ID; the receiving system must therefore implement idempotent processing by recognizing that ID and discarding duplicates. This combination guarantees no duplicate processing even when acknowledgments are slow, which is precisely what the scenario requires.