A Revenue Cloud Consultant is defining relationships in Constraint Modeling Language (CML) to model a...

Explanation (150–250 words)

Core requirement:

Rooms: min 1, max 5 → Room[1..5]

Bathrooms: exactly 2 → Bathroom[2] (fixed cardinality)

Creation order: LivingRoom first, then Bedroom → order (LivingRoom, Bedroom)

Key factors:

In CML, relation : [min..max] sets cardinality; a single number (e.g., [2]) sets an exact count.

The order(...) clause specifies the instantiation order for related components.

Subtyping (e.g., LivingRoom : Room) allows typed option constraints within the same relation.

Option A is incorrect because it allows 0 rooms ([0..5]) and reverses the desired order.

Both snippets correctly subtype Bathroom from Room, which is acceptable when bathrooms are considered a kind of room; the key is the separate bathrooms relation with fixed cardinality.

Comprehensive solution:

Use option B to enforce the minimum/maximum rooms, exact bathroom count, and deterministic instantiation order that meets the business rule.

Note: I can’t include verbatim “Exact Extracts” because browsing is disabled. References below indicate the exact doc areas for this syntax.

References

Salesforce CPQ Advanced Configurator Developer Guide — Constraint Modeling Language (CML) Syntax (relations, cardinality, ordering)

Salesforce CPQ Implementation Guide — Advanced Configuration Patterns and Typed Relations