Adobe AD0-E902 - Adobe Workfront Fusion Professional

Step by Step Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

Problem Summary:

The Fusion scenario updates the project condition multiple times, once for each high-priority issue.

The desired behavior is to update the project condition only once, based on the overall condition of all associated issues.

Option Analysis:

A. Change the issue search module to result set of First Matching:

This would limit the search to only the first issue. However, this does not account for all issues on the project, leading to incomplete logic for setting the project condition.

B. Add an Ignore error directive as an error handler route for the update module:

Ignoring errors does not prevent multiple updates; it only suppresses errors in the workflow.

C. Create a separate scenario to update the overall project condition:

Correct. By separating the project update logic into a different scenario, the developer can ensure the condition is updated only once after analyzing all issues. The project condition is calculated holistically, based on the state of all high-priority issues.

D. Apply the Run Once flow control function:

"Run Once" controls execution at the scenario level, not within a module's iteration. It cannot prevent multiple updates in this context.

Why Separate Scenario is Best:

Simplifies Logic: A separate scenario can be designed to run after all issues have been checked, ensuring only one update per project.

Avoids Redundancy: Prevents unnecessary API calls to update the same project multiple times.

Improves Performance: Reduces the number of operations and bundles processed in the main scenario.

Implementation:

Create a separate scenario triggered after the issue-checking scenario completes.

Use aggregate data (e.g., a data store or intermediate processing) to evaluate the overall project condition before performing a single update.

Step by Step Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

Scenario Summary:

The source system provides a list of users, job roles, and departments.

The destination system requires a mapping of job roles to different departments.

Updates to this mapping are infrequent, and there is a concern for more security than a spreadsheet offers.

Option Analysis:

A. Switch: A switch function in Workfront Fusion is used to make decisions based on specific conditions but does not maintain persistent data like mappings over time. It is not suitable for storing mappings that require infrequent updates.

B. Spreadsheet: Spreadsheets may be simple to use but are less secure and not ideal for integrating with Workfront Fusion workflows due to their lack of direct integration features or control over changes.

C. Data store: Adata storein Workfront Fusion is specifically designed for storing persistent data, such as mappings or reference tables. It is secure, easy to manage, and integrates seamlessly with workflows, making it the best choice for this use case.

D. Table aggregator: A table aggregator is used for combining or processing data within a workflow but is not suitable for storing persistent mappings outside of a running scenario.

Why Data Store is Appropriate:

Persistence: A data store is ideal for maintaining the job role and department mappings across scenarios.

Security: It is managed within Workfront Fusion, offering better control and access restrictions compared to a spreadsheet.

Ease of Integration: Data stores can be directly queried or updated in Fusion workflows, allowing seamless handling of mappings.

Scalability: While updates are infrequent, the data store can handle changes easily and scale if the volume of mappings increases.

Implementation in Workfront Fusion:

Create adata storefor job roles and departments in Workfront Fusion.

Set up fields for Job Role and Department in the data store.

Use Workfront Fusion scenarios to retrieve and update mappings from this data store based on requirements.

References:This approach aligns with the Workfront Fusion documentation on data stores, which are designed for secure and efficient storage of persistent data used across scenarios. See Workfront Fusion resources for data store setup and use cases for further details.

Understanding the Scenario:

The issue involves end users inputting inconsistent date and currency formats that result in errors in a Workfront Fusion scenario.

The default behavior of Fusion stops the scenario after three retries due to input mismatches or invalid formats.

Why Option A is Correct:

Storing Incomplete Executions: In Adobe Workfront Fusion, enabling "Store incomplete executions" in the scenario settings allows administrators to capture incomplete runs without fully stopping the entire process. This feature stores all relevant data, even from incomplete runs, allowing administrators to identify and correct input issues manually.

Error Troubleshooting: By reviewing incomplete executions, admins can pinpoint where the scenario failed, resolve the issue, and potentially reprocess those incomplete records, preventing complete scenario stoppage.

Why Option B is Incorrect:

The "switch module" can handle specific input variations, but it is not a comprehensive solution for handling unexpected or inconsistent formats entered by end users. While it might mitigate some errors, it does not address the root cause and can miss unanticipated input patterns.

Why Option C is Incorrect:

Setting up an error handling path to notify users and request corrections adds an additional manual step for users but does not resolve the problem efficiently within Fusion. Moreover, this solution does not prevent the scenario from halting after retries.

Steps to Enable Storing Incomplete Executions:

Navigate to the scenario in Adobe Workfront Fusion.

Open theScenario Settingsby clicking the gear icon.

Enable the optionStore Incomplete Executionsunder Execution settings.

Save the settings and activate the scenario.

How This Solves the Problem:

Enabling this setting ensures that no data is lost when the scenario fails due to inconsistent inputs. Admins can access the incomplete executions through the scenario execution history, apply necessary corrections, and retry specific records or steps as needed.

References and Supporting Documentation:

Adobe Workfront Fusion Official Documentation: Scenario Settings

Workfront Community: Handling Incomplete Executions

Understanding the Array and the Task:

Input Array (Colors):

[

{ "ID": "22342", "name": "Red" },

{ "ID": "33495", "name": "Blue" }

]

Goal: Extract the first ID from the array, which is "22342".

Why Option B is Correct:

The expressionget(map(2.Colors; ID); 1):

map(2.Colors; ID): Iterates over the array 2.Colors and extracts the ID field from each object. This creates a new array containing just the IDs:["22342", "33495"].

get(...; 1): Retrieves the first element of the newly created array, which is "22342".

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

Option A (map(2.Colors; ID; ID; 1)):

This syntax is invalid because the additional ID and 1 parameters are misplaced. The map function requires only two arguments: the array and the field to map.

Option C (map(get(2.Colors; ID); 1)):

This incorrectly attempts to use get inside map. The get function does not return a field for mapping, so the syntax is invalid.

How the Expression Works:

Step 1: map(2.Colors; ID)

Extracts the ID field from each object in the Colors array.

Output: ["22342", "33495"].

Step 2: get(...; 1)

Retrieves the first element of the mapped array.

Output: "22342".

Use Case in Workfront Fusion:

This approach is commonly used when processing arrays in Fusion scenarios, ensuring specific elements are accessed without additional looping or complex logic.

References and Supporting Documentation:

Adobe Workfront Fusion Functions Documentation

Workfront Community: Using Map and Get Functions

By combining map and get, this expression efficiently extracts the first ID from the array, ensuring correct and reliable results.

Step by Step Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

Understanding the Scenario:

In Workfront Fusion, each module in a scenario processes data and generates bundles as output.

The bundle inspector shows the number of bundles (data packets) output by a module during an execution.

Option Analysis:

A. The number of seconds to process the module:

This is incorrect. The number in the bundle inspector does not indicate time but rather the count of output bundles. Processing time is not displayed in this way.

B. The number of output bundles:

Correct. The number displayed in the bundle inspector represents how many bundles the module output during the execution. In the given example, the "Tasks" module outputs1 bundle, and the "Project" module outputs23 bundles.

C. The number of operations performed:

This is incorrect. The bundle inspector displays the number of output bundles, not operations. While operations may be a result of processing bundles, they are tracked separately in Fusion reports.

D. The number of times a module has been edited:

This is incorrect. Editing history is not displayed in the bundle inspector.

Explanation of Bundle Inspector:

Each module processes input data and generates output bundles.

These numbers in the bundle inspector indicate how many bundles the module is outputting in the current run of the scenario.

For example, if a "Search" module retrieves 23 records, the bundle inspector will show 23, meaning the module outputs 23 bundles.

Context of the Given Image:

The "Tasks" module processes and outputs 1 bundle.

The "Project" module processes 1 input bundle (from "Tasks") and outputs 23 bundles.

References:This information is consistent with Workfront Fusion documentation, which explains the bundle inspector's function during scenario execution. The bundle inspector is used to monitor data processing and ensure expected outputs from modules.

Step by Step Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

Best Practices for Scenario Clarity:

Workfront Fusion scenarios can become complex. Adopting practices that enhance readability, shareability, and understanding ensures the scenario can be maintained and used effectively by others.

Option Analysis:

A. Naming all modules by providing short but relevant labels:

Correct. Proper naming helps identify the function of each module at a glance. For example, instead of generic names like "Project Search," use "Search High Priority Projects."

This makes it easier to debug, share, and update the scenario.

B. Insert Note Modules at the beginning of the scenario:

Incorrect. While notes are useful, inserting a Note module at the beginning is not always necessary unless clarification is required for the initial step. Adding notes throughout the scenario (Option C) is more beneficial.

C. Add notes where applicable to clarify what is happening:

Correct. Adding comments or notes helps explain the purpose of certain steps, making the scenario easier to understand for collaborators or when revisiting it in the future.

D. Attach the requirements document using the scenario settings:

Incorrect. Attaching a requirements document might be useful for reference but does not directly contribute to scenario readability or understanding within the interface.

Implementation Tips:

Use descriptive names for modules that clearly indicate their purpose (e.g., "Update Project Status" instead of "Update Record").

Add comments or notes at decision points or complex mapping expressions to explain logic.

Step by Step Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

Problem Summary:

The scenario has become too large due to the high number of modules.

The goal is to reduce the number of modules by optimizing how data is transformed.

Option Analysis:

A. Nesting multiple mapping panel functions:

Nesting multiple functions in the mapping panel (e.g., using if(), concat(), replace()) eliminates the need for separate modules to set and reset variables for each transformation.

This is a highly efficient technique to transform data in fewer modules, making it the correct answer.

B. Using a Compose a string module and Text Parser:

This involves additional modules (Compose a string + Text Parser) instead of reducing the number of modules. It is not an optimal solution to this problem.

C. Setting the scenario to Auto Commit:

The Auto Commit setting helps with transactional control and does not reduce the number of modules in a scenario.

Why Nesting Mapping Functions is Effective:

Efficiency: Complex transformations can be performed inline within a single mapping panel.

Readability: Proper nesting and naming conventions make it easier to understand the logic without adding unnecessary modules.

Scalability: This approach keeps the scenario compact and reduces complexity as the scenario grows.

How to Implement:

Open the mapping panel in relevant modules.

Use multiple nested functions like if(), concat(), add(), etc., within the mapping expressions.

Test the mapping thoroughly to ensure correctness.

Understanding the Requirement:

The user needs to view the exactAPI requestand the correspondingresponsea module executes in Adobe Workfront Fusion.

This is critical for debugging, troubleshooting, or validating API operations within scenarios.

Why Option B is Correct:

Execution History:

Theexecution historylogs detailed information about every module that runs in a scenario.

It provides access to theAPI requestsent, including the headers, parameters, and body.

It also displays theAPI responsereceived, including HTTP status codes, returned data, and error messages (if applicable).

This feature is indispensable for debugging and verifying the behavior of modules.

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

Option A ("Using the Bundle Inspector"):

The Bundle Inspector provides a view of processed data bundles but does not include API request/response details.

Option C ("Using the Fusion DevTool scenario debugger"):

Fusion does not have a specific "DevTool debugger." The execution history serves this purpose.

Option D ("Using the Fusion DevTool error evaluator"):

While error logs help evaluate issues, they do not directly show the API request/response unless an error occurs. Execution history is a more comprehensive source of this data.

Steps to View Execution History:

Run the scenario or inspect a previously executed scenario.

Navigate to theExecution Historytab for the scenario.

Select a specific module to view itsdetails.

Inspect theAPI request and response, which includes all relevant parameters and data.

References and Supporting Documentation:

Adobe Workfront Fusion Documentation: Execution History

Workfront Community: Debugging with Execution History

To determine if a task ID is valid in Workfront, you can use theSearch Recordmodule. This module allows you to search for records, such as tasks, within Workfront based on a given ID.

Search Record Module:

This module can be used to search for a specific task in Workfront by its task ID.

If the task ID is valid, it will return the task details; if the task ID is invalid, it will return an error or no results.

TheSearch Recordmodule is designed to check if a specific record exists in Workfront, making it ideal for verifying the validity of a task ID.

Why Not Other Options?

A. Read Record: This module reads a specific record by ID but does not search across multiple records. It may not provide the flexibility needed to check if a task ID is valid without knowing the exact task ID.

B. Read Related Record: This module is used to read a related record (e.g., reading the project related to a task). It is not suitable for validating a task ID directly.

References:

Adobe Workfront Fusion Documentation: Search Record Module Usage

Experience League Community: Verifying Record IDs in Workfront Fusion