The correct options are Test case that simulates a network timeout from the external service and Test case that asserts a rejected promise includes an error message.

The timeout test exercises the code path where the upstream call does not respond and confirms the service handles the condition without hanging and surfaces an appropriate failure. This directly targets the requested edge condition for network timeouts and helps ensure the request completes within Cloud Run limits or returns a controlled error.

The rejected promise test verifies that asynchronous failures propagate as a rejection that includes a clear message. This improves debuggability and allows callers and logs to capture meaningful context when the upstream call fails.

Test case that validates handling of malformed JSON returned by the upstream API focuses on payload format issues rather than the network timeout and server error scenarios that leadership emphasized. It is not the target error path for this request.

Create a Cloud Monitoring alert policy for HTTP 500 rates is an operational monitoring configuration and not a test. It does not increase unit or integration test coverage for error handling in the service code.

Test case that verifies a successful response returns expected user data exercises the happy path rather than error handling. The team already has a basic unit test for the successful case and this does not add coverage for the specified failure modes.

Full AWS Practitioner Certification Question