Free Microsoft DP-750 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

The correct answer is D — apply the main branch changes to Branch1 and resolve the conflicts.

When a merge fails due to conflicts, the right workflow is to bring main ' s changes into the feature branch, resolve conflicts there, and then merge the clean feature branch into main. This is the standard Git conflict resolution pattern — resolve in the feature branch, not in main — because it protects the main branch from partial or broken states during resolution.

Option A (clone Branch1 as a new repository) creates a disconnected copy; it doesn ' t resolve the conflict and breaks the relationship with the remote. Option B (apply changes directly to main) bypasses the feature branch entirely and risks overwriting the other developer ' s work. Option C (clone main as a new repository) again creates a disconnected copy — none of Branch1 ' s changes would be incorporated, and history would be lost.

Two things are needed here:

For the rule enforcement: use @dlt.expect_or_drop. This drops any record that violates rule1 before it reaches Table1, while the pipeline continues processing all valid records. The table only ever receives clean data.

For reviewing metrics: the Lakeflow SDP Pipeline UI is the right tool — zero development effort required. The pipeline graph shows expectation pass/fail counts directly on each table node, and the event log provides a detailed per-batch breakdown of how many records were dropped and why. Data engineers can inspect this at any time without writing additional monitoring queries or connecting external dashboards.

This combination is one of the strongest arguments for SDP over hand-coded Structured Streaming: expectation observability is built in, not bolted on.

Branch1 must first incorporate the current changes from main. During that merge, the conflicting sections of Notebook1 can be reviewed and resolved so that the resulting feature-branch version contains the required work from both branches. After committing the resolution, Branch1 can be merged into main normally. Cloning either branch into another Git folder creates another working copy but does not resolve the conflicting histories. Applying changes directly to main bypasses the controlled feature-branch workflow and risks omitting or overwriting one contributor’s work. Resolving the conflict on Branch1 also allows the combined notebook to be tested before updating the shared main branch. Therefore, merging main into Branch1, resolving the conflict, and completing the final merge is the correct workflow.

The solution is a Key Vault-backed secret scope combined with dbutils.secrets.get() in the notebook.

An Azure Key Vault-backed secret scope does not copy the secret value into Databricks. Every call to dbutils.secrets.get() fetches the live current value directly from Key Vault at runtime. This means when the cloud security team rotates storageKey in Key Vault, the notebook automatically picks up the new value on its next run — no Databricks configuration changes needed. That satisfies ' always retrieve the latest value. '

The principle of least privilege is upheld because only the secret scope has read access to Key Vault through a service principal or managed identity, and individual users never see the raw secret value — Databricks redacts it in logs automatically.

A Databricks-backed scope stores a copy of the secret inside Databricks, so it wouldn ' t automatically reflect Key Vault updates. Hardcoding or using environment variables would expose the secret in plain text.