First-grade Vce ACD-301 Exam - Win Your Appian Certificate with Top Score

kenston787

Nowadays, it is widely believed that getting a certificate is quite important for some jobs. ACD-301 Exam Braindumps contain the main knowledge of the exam, and it will help you pass the exam. ACD-301 exam dumps not only have the quality, but also have the quantity, and it’s enough for you to practice. What’s more, we respect the private information of the buyers, your personal information such as the name or email address will be protected well.
Passing the Appian Certified Lead Developer (ACD-301) certification is crucial for those who want to excel in the Appian industry. However, one of the biggest challenges that individuals face after deciding to take the Appian Certified Lead Developer (ACD-301) exam is finding authentic ACD-301 questions for efficient preparation. Those who do not study with real Appian Certified Lead Developer (ACD-301) dumps often fail the test and waste their valuable resources.

>> Vce ACD-301 Exam <<

Appian ACD-301 Web-based Practice ExamWe can claim that the qulity of our ACD-301 exam questions is the best and we are famous as a brand in the market for some advantages. Firstly, the content of our ACD-301 study materials is approved by the most distinguished professionals who are devoting themselves in the field for years. Secondly, our ACD-301 praparation braindumps are revised and updated by our experts on regular basis. With these brilliant features our ACD-301 learning engine is rated as the most worthwhile, informative and high-effective.
Appian Certified Lead Developer Sample Questions (Q17-Q22):NEW QUESTION # 17
Your Appian project just went live with the following environment setup: DEV > TEST (SIT/UAT) > PROD. Your client is considering adding a support team to manage production defects and minor enhancements, while the original development team focuses on Phase 2. Your client is asking you for a new environment strategy that will have the least impact on Phase 2 development work. Which option involves the lowest additional server cost and the least code retrofit effort?

• A. Phase 2 development work stream: DEV > TEST (SIT/UAT) > PROD
• B. Phase 2 development work stream: DEV > TEST (SIT) > STAGE (UAT) > PROD
• C. Phase 2 development work stream: DEV > TEST (SIT) > STAGE (UAT) > PROD
• D. Phase 2 development work stream: DEV > TEST (SIT/UAT) > PROD
  

Answer: A
Explanation:
Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:
The goal is to design an environment strategy that minimizes additional server costs and code retrofit effort while allowing the support team to manage production defects and minor enhancements without disrupting the Phase 2 development team. The current setup (DEV > TEST (SIT/UAT) > PROD) uses a single development and testing pipeline, and the client wants to segregate support activities from Phase 2 development. Appian's Environment Management Best Practices emphasize scalability, cost efficiency, and minimal refactoring when adjusting environments.
Option C (Phase 2 development work stream: DEV > TEST (SIT/UAT) > PROD; Production support work stream: DEV > TEST2 (SIT/UAT) > PROD):
This option is the most cost-effective and requires the least code retrofit effort. It leverages the existing DEV environment for both teams but introduces a separate TEST2 environment for the support team's SIT/UAT activities. Since DEV is already shared, no new development server is needed, minimizing server costs. The existing code in DEV and TEST can be reused for TEST2 by exporting and importing packages, with minimal adjustments (e.g., updating environment-specific configurations). The Phase 2 team continues using the original TEST environment, avoiding disruption. Appian supports multiple test environments branching from a single DEV, and the PROD environment remains shared, aligning with the client's goal of low impact on Phase 2. The support team can handle defects and enhancements in TEST2 without interfering with development workflows.
Option A (Phase 2 development work stream: DEV > TEST (SIT) > STAGE (UAT) > PROD; Production support work stream: DEV > TEST2 (SIT/UAT) > PROD):
This introduces a STAGE environment for UAT in the Phase 2 stream, adding complexity and potentially requiring code updates to accommodate the new environment (e.g., adjusting deployment scripts). It also requires a new TEST2 server, increasing costs compared to Option C, where TEST2 reuses existing infrastructure.
Option B (Phase 2 development work stream: DEV > TEST (SIT) > STAGE (UAT) > PROD; Production support work stream: DEV2 > STAGE (SIT/UAT) > PROD):
This option adds both a DEV2 server for the support team and a STAGE environment, significantly increasing server costs. It also requires refactoring code to support two development environments (DEV and DEV2), including duplicating or synchronizing objects, which is more effort than reusing a single DEV.
Option D (Phase 2 development work stream: DEV > TEST (SIT/UAT) > PROD; Production support work stream: DEV2 > TEST (SIT/UAT) > PROD):
This introduces a DEV2 server for the support team, adding server costs. Sharing the TEST environment between teams could lead to conflicts (e.g., overwriting test data), potentially disrupting Phase 2 development. Code retrofit effort is higher due to managing two DEV environments and ensuring TEST compatibility.
Cost and Retrofit Analysis:
Server Cost: Option C avoids new DEV or STAGE servers, using only an additional TEST2, which can often be provisioned on existing hardware or cloud resources with minimal cost. Options A, B, and D require additional servers (TEST2, DEV2, or STAGE), increasing expenses.
Code Retrofit: Option C minimizes changes by reusing DEV and PROD, with TEST2 as a simple extension. Options A and B require updates for STAGE, and B and D involve managing multiple DEV environments, necessitating more significant refactoring.
Appian's recommendation for environment strategies in such scenarios is to maximize reuse of existing infrastructure and avoid unnecessary environment proliferation, making Option C the optimal choice.

NEW QUESTION # 18
The business database for a large, complex Appian application is to undergo a migration between database technologies, as well as interface and process changes. The project manager asks you to recommend a test strategy. Given the changes, which two items should be included in the test strategy?

• A. Penetration testing of the Appian platform
• B. A regression test of all existing system functionality
• C. Internationalization testing of the Appian platform
• D. Tests for each of the interfaces and process changes
• E. Tests that ensure users can still successfully log into the platform
  

Answer: B,D
Explanation:
Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:
As an Appian Lead Developer, recommending a test strategy for a large, complex application undergoing a database migration (e.g., from Oracle to PostgreSQL) and interface/process changes requires focusing on ensuring system stability, functionality, and the specific updates. The strategy must address risks tied to the scope-database technology shift, interface modifications, and process updates-while aligning with Appian's testing best practices. Let's evaluate each option:
A . Internationalization testing of the Appian platform:
Internationalization testing verifies that the application supports multiple languages, locales, and formats (e.g., date formats). While valuable for global applications, the scenario doesn't indicate a change in localization requirements tied to the database migration, interfaces, or processes. Appian's platform handles internationalization natively (e.g., via locale settings), and this isn't impacted by database technology or UI/process changes unless explicitly stated. This is out of scope for the given context and not a priority.
B . A regression test of all existing system functionality:
This is a critical inclusion. A database migration between technologies can affect data integrity, queries (e.g., a!queryEntity), and performance due to differences in SQL dialects, indexing, or drivers. Regression testing ensures that all existing functionality-records, reports, processes, and integrations-works as expected post-migration. Appian Lead Developer documentation mandates regression testing for significant infrastructure changes like this, as unmapped edge cases (e.g., datatype mismatches) could break the application. Given the "large, complex" nature, full-system validation is essential to catch unintended impacts.
C . Penetration testing of the Appian platform:
Penetration testing assesses security vulnerabilities (e.g., injection attacks). While security is important, the changes described-database migration, interface, and process updates-don't inherently alter Appian's security model (e.g., authentication, encryption), which is managed at the platform level. Appian's cloud or on-premise security isn't directly tied to database technology unless new vulnerabilities are introduced (not indicated here). This is a periodic concern, not specific to this migration, making it less relevant than functional validation.
D . Tests for each of the interfaces and process changes:
This is also essential. The project includes explicit "interface and process changes" alongside the migration. Interface updates (e.g., SAIL forms) might rely on new data structures or queries, while process changes (e.g., modified process models) could involve updated nodes or logic. Testing each change ensures these components function correctly with the new database and meet business requirements. Appian's testing guidelines emphasize targeted validation of modified components to confirm they integrate with the migrated data layer, making this a primary focus of the strategy.
E . Tests that ensure users can still successfully log into the platform:
Login testing verifies authentication (e.g., SSO, LDAP), typically managed by Appian's security layer, not the business database. A database migration affects application data, not user authentication, unless the database stores user credentials (uncommon in Appian, which uses separate identity management). While a quick sanity check, it's narrow and subsumed by broader regression testing (B), making it redundant as a standalone item.
Conclusion: The two key items are B (regression test of all existing system functionality) and D (tests for each of the interfaces and process changes). Regression testing (B) ensures the database migration doesn't disrupt the entire application, while targeted testing (D) validates the specific interface and process updates. Together, they cover the full scope-existing stability and new functionality-aligning with Appian's recommended approach for complex migrations and modifications.
Appian Documentation: "Testing Best Practices" (Regression and Component Testing).
Appian Lead Developer Certification: Application Maintenance Module (Database Migration Strategies).
Appian Best Practices: "Managing Large-Scale Changes in Appian" (Test Planning).

NEW QUESTION # 19
You are taking your package from the source environment and importing it into the target environment.
Review the errors encountered during inspection:
What is the first action you should take to Investigate the issue?

• A. Check whether the object (UUD ending in 7t00000i4e7a) is included in this package
• B. Check whether the object (UUID ending in 18028821) is included in this package
• C. Check whether the object (UUID ending in 25606) is included in this package
• D. Check whether the object (UUID ending in 18028931) is included in this package
  

Answer: A
Explanation:
The error log provided indicates issues during the package import into the target environment, with multiple objects failing to import due to missing precedents. The key error messages highlight specific UUIDs associated with objects that cannot be resolved. The first error listed states:
"'TEST_ENTITY_PROFILE_MERGE_HISTORY': The content [id=uuid-a-0000m5fc-f0e6-8000-9b01-011c48011c48, 18028821] was not imported because a required precedent is missing: entity [uuid=a-0000m5fc-f0e6-8000-9b01-011c48011c48, 18028821] cannot be found..." According to Appian's Package Deployment Best Practices, when importing a package, the first step in troubleshooting is to identify the root cause of the failure. The initial error in the log points to an entity object with a UUID ending in 18028821, which failed to import due to a missing precedent. This suggests that the object itself or one of its dependencies (e.g., a data store or related entity) is either missing from the package or not present in the target environment.
Option A (Check whether the object (UUID ending in 18028821) is included in this package): This is the correct first action. Since the first error references this UUID, verifying its inclusion in the package is the logical starting point. If it's missing, the package export from the source environment was incomplete. If it's included but still fails, the precedent issue (e.g., a missing data store) needs further investigation.
Option B (Check whether the object (UUID ending in 7t00000i4e7a) is included in this package): This appears to be a typo or corrupted UUID (likely intended as something like "7t000014e7a" or similar), and it's not referenced in the primary error. It's mentioned later in the log but is not the first issue to address.
Option C (Check whether the object (UUID ending in 25606) is included in this package): This UUID is associated with a data store error later in the log, but it's not the first reported issue.
Option D (Check whether the object (UUID ending in 18028931) is included in this package): This UUID is mentioned in a subsequent error related to a process model or expression rule, but it's not the initial failure point.
Appian recommends addressing errors in the order they appear in the log to systematically resolve dependencies. Thus, starting with the object ending in 18028821 is the priority.

NEW QUESTION # 20
An existing integration is implemented in Appian. Its role is to send data for the main case and its related objects in a complex JSON to a REST API, to insert new information into an existing application. This integration was working well for a while. However, the customer highlighted one specific scenario where the integration failed in Production, and the API responded with a 500 Internal Error code. The project is in Post-Production Maintenance, and the customer needs your assistance. Which three steps should you take to troubleshoot the issue?

• A. Send a test case to the Production API to ensure the service is still up and running.
• B. Obtain the JSON sent to the API and validate that there is no difference between the expected JSON format and the sent one.
• C. Analyze the behavior of subsequent calls to the Production API to ensure there is no global issue, and ask the customer to analyze the API logs to understand the nature of the issue.
• D. Ensure there were no network issues when the integration was sent.
• E. Send the same payload to the test API to ensure the issue is not related to the API environment.
  

Answer: B,C,E
Explanation:
Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:
As an Appian Lead Developer in a Post-Production Maintenance phase, troubleshooting a failed integration (HTTP 500 Internal Server Error) requires a systematic approach to isolate the root cause-whether it's Appian-side, API-side, or environmental. A 500 error typically indicates an issue on the server (API) side, but the developer must confirm Appian's contribution and collaborate with the customer. The goal is to select three steps that efficiently diagnose the specific scenario while adhering to Appian's best practices. Let's evaluate each option:
A . Send the same payload to the test API to ensure the issue is not related to the API environment:
This is a critical step. Replicating the failure by sending the exact payload (from the failed Production call) to a test API environment helps determine if the issue is environment-specific (e.g., Production-only configuration) or inherent to the payload/API logic. Appian's Integration troubleshooting guidelines recommend testing in a non-Production environment first to isolate variables. If the test API succeeds, the Production environment or API state is implicated; if it fails, the payload or API logic is suspect. This step leverages Appian's Integration object logging (e.g., request/response capture) and is a standard diagnostic practice.
B . Send a test case to the Production API to ensure the service is still up and running:
While verifying Production API availability is useful, sending an arbitrary test case risks further Production disruption during maintenance and may not replicate the specific scenario. A generic test might succeed (e.g., with simpler data), masking the issue tied to the complex JSON. Appian's Post-Production guidelines discourage unnecessary Production interactions unless replicating the exact failure is controlled and justified. This step is less precise than analyzing existing behavior (C) and is not among the top three priorities.
C . Analyze the behavior of subsequent calls to the Production API to ensure there is no global issue, and ask the customer to analyze the API logs to understand the nature of the issue:
This is essential. Reviewing subsequent Production calls (via Appian's Integration logs or monitoring tools) checks if the 500 error is isolated or systemic (e.g., API outage). Since Appian can't access API server logs, collaborating with the customer to review their logs is critical for a 500 error, which often stems from server-side exceptions (e.g., unhandled data). Appian Lead Developer training emphasizes partnership with API owners and using Appian's Process History or Application Monitoring to correlate failures-making this a key troubleshooting step.
D . Obtain the JSON sent to the API and validate that there is no difference between the expected JSON format and the sent one:
This is a foundational step. The complex JSON payload is central to the integration, and a 500 error could result from malformed data (e.g., missing fields, invalid types) that the API can't process. In Appian, you can retrieve the sent JSON from the Integration object's execution logs (if enabled) or Process Instance details. Comparing it against the API's documented schema (e.g., via Postman or API specs) ensures Appian's output aligns with expectations. Appian's documentation stresses validating payloads as a first-line check for integration failures, especially in specific scenarios.
E . Ensure there were no network issues when the integration was sent:
While network issues (e.g., timeouts, DNS failures) can cause integration errors, a 500 Internal Server Error indicates the request reached the API and triggered a server-side failure-not a network issue (which typically yields 503 or timeout errors). Appian's Connected System logs can confirm HTTP status codes, and network checks (e.g., via IT teams) are secondary unless connectivity is suspected. This step is less relevant to the 500 error and lower priority than A, C, and D.
Conclusion: The three best steps are A (test API with same payload), C (analyze subsequent calls and customer logs), and D (validate JSON payload). These steps systematically isolate the issue-testing Appian's output (D), ruling out environment-specific problems (A), and leveraging customer insights into the API failure (C). This aligns with Appian's Post-Production Maintenance strategies: replicate safely, analyze logs, and validate data.
Appian Documentation: "Troubleshooting Integrations" (Integration Object Logging and Debugging).
Appian Lead Developer Certification: Integration Module (Post-Production Troubleshooting).
Appian Best Practices: "Handling REST API Errors in Appian" (500 Error Diagnostics).

NEW QUESTION # 21
You need to connect Appian with LinkedIn to retrieve personal information about the users in your application. This information is considered private, and users should allow Appian to retrieve their information. Which authentication method would you recommend to fulfill this request?

• A. OAuth 2.0: Authorization Code Grant
• B. Basic Authentication with user's login information
• C. Basic Authentication with dedicated account's login information
• D. API Key Authentication
  

Answer: A
Explanation:
Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:
As an Appian Lead Developer, integrating with an external system like LinkedIn to retrieve private user information requires a secure, user-consented authentication method that aligns with Appian's capabilities and industry standards. The requirement specifies that users must explicitly allow Appian to access their private data, which rules out methods that don't involve user authorization. Let's evaluate each option based on Appian's official documentation and LinkedIn's API requirements:
A . API Key Authentication:
API Key Authentication involves using a single static key to authenticate requests. While Appian supports this method via Connected Systems (e.g., HTTP Connected System with an API key header), it's unsuitable here. API keys authenticate the application, not the user, and don't provide a mechanism for individual user consent. LinkedIn's API for private data (e.g., profile information) requires per-user authorization, which API keys cannot facilitate. Appian documentation notes that API keys are best for server-to-server communication without user context, making this option inadequate for the requirement.
B . Basic Authentication with user's login information:
This method uses a username and password (typically base64-encoded) provided by each user. In Appian, Basic Authentication is supported in Connected Systems, but applying it here would require users to input their LinkedIn credentials directly into Appian. This is insecure, impractical, and against LinkedIn's security policies, as it exposes user passwords to the application. Appian Lead Developer best practices discourage storing or handling user credentials directly due to security risks (e.g., credential leakage) and maintenance challenges. Moreover, LinkedIn's API doesn't support Basic Authentication for user-specific data access-it requires OAuth 2.0. This option is not viable.
C . Basic Authentication with dedicated account's login information:
This involves using a single, dedicated LinkedIn account's credentials to authenticate all requests. While technically feasible in Appian's Connected System (using Basic Authentication), it fails to meet the requirement that "users should allow Appian to retrieve their information." A dedicated account would access data on behalf of all users without their individual consent, violating privacy principles and LinkedIn's API terms. LinkedIn restricts such approaches, requiring user-specific authorization for private data. Appian documentation advises against blanket credentials for user-specific integrations, making this option inappropriate.
D . OAuth 2.0: Authorization Code Grant:
This is the recommended choice. OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code Grant, supported natively in Appian's Connected System framework, is designed for scenarios where users must authorize an application (Appian) to access their private data on a third-party service (LinkedIn). In this flow, Appian redirects users to LinkedIn's authorization page, where they grant permission. Upon approval, LinkedIn returns an authorization code, which Appian exchanges for an access token via the Token Request Endpoint. This token enables Appian to retrieve private user data (e.g., profile details) securely and per user. Appian's documentation explicitly recommends this method for integrations requiring user consent, such as LinkedIn, and provides tools like a!authorizationLink() to handle authorization failures gracefully. LinkedIn's API (e.g., v2 API) mandates OAuth 2.0 for personal data access, aligning perfectly with this approach.
Conclusion: OAuth 2.0: Authorization Code Grant (D) is the best method. It ensures user consent, complies with LinkedIn's API requirements, and leverages Appian's secure integration capabilities. In practice, you'd configure a Connected System in Appian with LinkedIn's Client ID, Client Secret, Authorization Endpoint (e.g., https://www.linkedin.com/oauth/v2/authorization), and Token Request Endpoint (e.g., https://www.linkedin.com/oauth/v2/accessToken), then use an Integration object to call LinkedIn APIs with the access token. This solution is scalable, secure, and aligns with Appian Lead Developer certification standards for third-party integrations.
Appian Documentation: "Setting Up a Connected System with the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code Grant" (Connected Systems).
Appian Lead Developer Certification: Integration Module (OAuth 2.0 Configuration and Best Practices).
LinkedIn Developer Documentation: "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code Flow" (API Authentication Requirements).

NEW QUESTION # 22
......
The Appian Certified Lead Developer (ACD-301) certification has become a basic requirement to advance rapidly in the information technology sector. Since Appian ACD-301 actual dumps are vital to prepare quickly for the examination. Therefore, you will need them if you desire to ace the Appian Certified Lead Developer (ACD-301) exam in a short time.
Latest ACD-301 Exam Duration: https://www.test4cram.com/ACD-301_real-exam-dumps.html
Only studing with our ACD-301 exam questions for 20 to 30 hours, you will be able to pass the ACD-301 exam with confidence, Not only do we offer free demo services before purchase, we also provide three learning modes of ACD-301 learning guide for users, Our pass rate is high to 98.9% and the similarity percentage between our ACD-301 study guide and real exam is 90% based on our seven-year educating experience, Appian Vce ACD-301 Exam Less time for high efficiency.
Which of the following is the most accurate biometric ACD-301 system, it's in standard Preview mode, and it will be the window where you do your work, Only studing with our ACD-301 Exam Questions for 20 to 30 hours, you will be able to pass the ACD-301 exam with confidence.
Advantages Of Web-Based Appian ACD-301 Practice TestsNot only do we offer free demo services before purchase, we also provide three learning modes of ACD-301 learning guide for users, Our pass rate is high to 98.9% and the similarity percentage between our ACD-301 study guide and real exam is 90% based on our seven-year educating experience.
Less time for high efficiency, We are here to help you.

• ACD-301 Study Material &#129332; ACD-301 New Braindumps Book &#128168; ACD-301 Latest Exam Experience &#128123; Download [ ACD-301 ] for free by simply entering ✔ [url]www.testkingpass.com ️✔️ website ➰ACD-301 Accurate Prep Material[/url]
• 2026 Pass-Sure ACD-301 – 100% Free Vce Exam | Latest ACD-301 Exam Duration &#127961; Easily obtain “ ACD-301 ” for free download through ⏩ [url]www.pdfvce.com ⏪ &#128125ractice ACD-301 Exam[/url]
• Vce ACD-301 Exam | Latest Latest ACD-301 Exam Duration: Appian Certified Lead Developer &#129417; Search for 《 ACD-301 》 on ⮆ [url]www.torrentvce.com ⮄ immediately to obtain a free download ✴ACD-301 Latest Exam Experience[/url]
• ACD-301 New Braindumps Book &#129424; Valid Test ACD-301 Bootcamp &#128368; ACD-301 Braindump Pdf &#127755; Download ➠ ACD-301 &#129072; for free by simply entering ⮆ [url]www.pdfvce.com ⮄ website &#128041;ACD-301 New Braindumps Book[/url]
• ACD-301 Valid Test Cram &#128562; ACD-301 Latest Exam Experience &#128330; Practice ACD-301 Exam &#128716; ✔ [url]www.prepawaypdf.com ️✔️ is best website to obtain ⮆ ACD-301 ⮄ for free download &#128174;Test ACD-301 Tutorials[/url]
• Latest ACD-301 Test Cram &#127925; ACD-301 Braindump Pdf &#128104; ACD-301 Valid Test Cram &#128140; Search for ➥ ACD-301 &#129092; and obtain a free download on ▶ [url]www.pdfvce.com ◀ &#128008;ACD-301 Reliable Test Braindumps[/url]
• ACD-301 Valid Test Cram &#128550; Practice ACD-301 Exam &#128136; ACD-301 Reliable Test Braindumps &#128018; Download 「 ACD-301 」 for free by simply searching on “ [url]www.prepawaypdf.com ” &#128558;New ACD-301 Dumps[/url]
• Exam ACD-301 Tutorial &#129493; Practice ACD-301 Exam &#129433; New ACD-301 Dumps &#129322; Copy URL ⏩ [url]www.pdfvce.com ⏪ open and search for ▶ ACD-301 ◀ to download for free &#128433;ACD-301 Reliable Test Braindumps[/url]
• Desktop-Based/Online Appian ACD-301 Practice Test &#129665; Open ▶ [url]www.dumpsmaterials.com ◀ enter ➥ ACD-301 &#129092; and obtain a free download &#129425ractice ACD-301 Exam[/url]
• ACD-301 Valid Test Cram &#128256; ACD-301 Valid Exam Duration &#127827; Latest ACD-301 Test Cram &#128641; Open 「 [url]www.pdfvce.com 」 and search for 《 ACD-301 》 to download exam materials for free &#128483;Test ACD-301 Tutorials[/url]
• 100% Pass Quiz ACD-301 - Appian Certified Lead Developer –High-quality Vce Exam &#128006; Search for ▛ ACD-301 ▟ and download exam materials for free through ▷ [url]www.pass4test.com ◁ ⛵ACD-301 Accurate Prep Material[/url]
• myportal.utt.edu.tt, myportal.utt.edu.tt, myportal.utt.edu.tt, myportal.utt.edu.tt, myportal.utt.edu.tt, myportal.utt.edu.tt, myportal.utt.edu.tt, myportal.utt.edu.tt, myportal.utt.edu.tt, myportal.utt.edu.tt, www.stes.tyc.edu.tw, www.stes.tyc.edu.tw, www.stes.tyc.edu.tw, www.stes.tyc.edu.tw, www.stes.tyc.edu.tw, www.stes.tyc.edu.tw, www.stes.tyc.edu.tw, www.stes.tyc.edu.tw, wjhsd.instructure.com, Disposable vapes