AZ-400 Question 236
Select 2Your organization hosts a private GitHub repository for source code and uses Azure DevOps to manage work items and CI/CD. You plan to bring in an external consultant who needs to create and review pull requests in GitHub for new features and also update the backlog in Azure DevOps. They do not require advanced testing or code coverage features, but they may occasionally need to trigger builds. Which two configuration options best meet these requirements, while minimizing licensing costs where possible?
- A
GitHub outside collaborator with Write access; Azure DevOps Stakeholder access.
- B
GitHub outside collaborator with Read access; Azure DevOps Stakeholder access.
- C
GitHub outside collaborator with Admin access; Azure DevOps Stakeholder access.
- D
GitHub outside collaborator with Write access; Azure DevOps Basic access.
- E
GitHub outside collaborator with Read access; Azure DevOps Basic access.
Show answer and explanation
Correct answers: A, D
Explanation
Stakeholder access in Azure DevOps is sufficient for basic work-item management tasks, such as creating and editing backlog items, without additional licensing costs. If pipeline triggering is needed, upgrading to Basic in Azure DevOps is required. In GitHub, an outside collaborator with Write access can push code branches and create pull requests directly against a private repository, fulfilling the requirement for code reviews and new feature submissions. Refer to official Microsoft and GitHub documentation for precise capability details and licensing considerations.
- A. Correct.
Correct. With Write access as an outside collaborator in GitHub, the consultant can push branches and create pull requests. Azure DevOps Stakeholder access is free and permits enough work-item management to track and update backlog items. This combination is sufficient if they only need to view pipelines (not queue or run them) and keep licensing costs minimal.
- B. Incorrect.
Incorrect. Read access in GitHub lets the consultant view repositories and comment on pull requests but not push branches directly in the same repo. They would have to fork the repository to open PRs. While Stakeholder is suitable for work-item management, this does not fully meet the requirement to create pull requests in the same repository.
- C. Incorrect.
Incorrect. Granting Admin access in GitHub gives broad permissions (including repository settings) that exceed the consultant� needs. This is neither cost-effective nor aligned with least-privilege best practices.
- D. Correct.
Correct. Write access in GitHub gives the consultant the ability to create and review pull requests in the same repository. Azure DevOps Basic access includes more features than Stakeholder (e.g., the ability to queue builds). While this involves higher licensing costs, it covers scenarios where the consultant may need to trigger pipelines directly.
- E. Incorrect.
Incorrect. Although Azure DevOps Basic access might provide extra functionality, GitHub Read access alone would not let the consultant create branches in the same repository. They would be unable to open PRs without a fork, which is less direct than required in this scenario.