Adobe AD0-E902 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Understanding the Scenario:

The scenario includes two modules:

Workfront Search Module: Fetches data (likely project details).

Tools Module: Manipulates and sets multiple variables.

What the Images Show:

Workfront Search Module (First Module):

The output indicates29 bundlesof project data were retrieved.

Each bundle contains fields such asID,name, andplannedCompletionDate.

Tools Module (Second Module):

The data from the Workfront module is processed to set variables likeProject NameandProject Due Date.

Output includes transformed values, such as appending the approver’s name ("Joan Harris") to the project name and updating the project due date.

Why Option C is Correct:

Delivery of 29 Bundles: The Workfront module retrieved 29 project bundles and passed them to the Tools module.

Data Manipulation in Tools Module: The second module modified the data, such as appending "Joan Harris" to the project name and updating the due date to a different value. This is evident from the changes in the output of the Tools module compared to the input from the Workfront module.

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

Option A:

Incorrect because theWorkfront moduleretrieved 29 bundles, not just 1 bundle. Additionally, the project name and planned completion date were manipulated in the second module, not the first.

Option B:

Incorrect because the retrieved data pertains to projects, not tasks.

Option D:

Incorrect because theinput and output fields in the Tools moduleare not identical. The data was clearly manipulated within the Tools module.

How This Scenario Operates:

The Workfront module fetches raw data, which is then processed in the Tools module. The processed variables (e.g., modified project names and due dates) are prepared for further use in subsequent scenario steps.

References and Supporting Documentation:

Adobe Workfront Fusion Documentation: Bundle Inspector

Workfront Community: Using Tools Module for Data Manipulation

The correct interpretation is that the first module delivered 29 bundles to the second module, where data manipulations occurred to modify the project name and planned completion date.

When dealing with intermittent errors, such as "service is not reachable," the default error handling in Adobe Workfront Fusion is often sufficient to improve execution success rates.

Default Error Handling:

Fusion automatically retries operations when transient errors, such as network or connection issues, occur.

By leveraging this built-in functionality, the system will attempt to re-execute the failing module after a brief delay, which is often enough for the external service to become reachable again.

Why Not Other Options?

A. Adding an error handler that will notify the system owner: While notifying the owner can be useful for monitoring purposes, it does not directly address improving the success rate of executions.

C. Adding a Break directive to the module: Adding a Break directive will stop the execution entirely, which is counterproductive in this case, as the service typically becomes reachable again after a short time.

References:

Adobe Workfront Fusion Documentation: Default Error Handling Mechanisms

Experience League Community: Managing Intermittent API Errors in Fusion

Step by Step Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

Understanding the Problem:

The scenario is triggered by a project status update.

After the scenario runs, it updates the project status again, which re-triggers the scenario, creating aloop.

The goal is to prevent the scenario from re-triggering itself.

Option Analysis:

A. When using instant triggers, finish the scenario with the Break directive to prevent the record from being updated again:

Incorrect. The Break directive is not used to prevent updates; it is used to stop further iterations of a scenario. It does not address the root cause of the loop, which is the re-triggering by updated records.

B. Create a filter after the instant trigger that only passes records that have not been updated by Fusion:

Correct. Adding a filter ensures that only records not recently updated by Fusion are processed. This prevents Fusion from re-triggering itself on the same record.

For example, you could use a condition to check if the Last Updated By field does not equal the Fusion user or if the Last Update Date is older than a certain threshold.

C. Schedule the instant trigger to only run at intervals to prevent Fusion from thinking the record has been updated after each run:

Incorrect. Instant triggers are event-driven, and their purpose is to respond to changes immediately. Scheduling them would negate the benefit of instant triggers and does not solve the root problem.

Why Filtering Records is Best:

Targeted Control: A filter after the trigger ensures only relevant updates (e.g., those not caused by Fusion) are processed.

Prevents Loops: By excluding records updated by Fusion, the scenario avoids re-triggering itself.

Maintains Performance: Filtering prevents unnecessary processing of irrelevant records, improving efficiency.

How to Implement:

After the instant trigger module, add a filter module.

Configure the filter to check the Last Updated By field or a custom flag indicating if the update was performed by Fusion.

Example: Last Updated By ≠ Fusion User or Update Flag ≠ True.

If a custom flag is used, ensure the flag is set when Fusion updates the record.

Alternative Solutions:

Add a custom field (e.g., "Updated by Fusion") that Fusion sets when it updates a record. This can also be used in the filter condition.

References:This approach aligns with Fusion best practices for preventing infinite loops caused by scenarios re-triggering themselves. Filtering ensures the scenario runs only when necessary, avoiding redundant processing and maintaining performance.