AD0-E902 Exam Dumps : Adobe Workfront Fusion Professional

Understanding the Scenario:

The image represents a Workfront Fusion scenario with a Workfront module, HTTP modules, and routers splitting the execution path.

The goal is to reuse multiple fields from the Workfront module (e.g., data extracted or processed earlier in the flow) as mapped expressions in HTTP PUT requests located in the bottom paths.

Why Option A is Correct:

Set Multiple Variables Module: This module allows you to define and store multiple variables at a single point in the scenario (e.g., after the Workfront module). These variables can then be reused throughout subsequent steps in the scenario.

Get Multiple Variables Module: By placing this module between the Text Parser and the bottom Router, you can retrieve all previously stored variables, ensuring consistent access across all branches of the flow. This avoids redundancy and ensures the data is easily accessible for each HTTP request in the bottom paths.

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

Option B ("Set Multiple Variables after Workfront, Get Variables before each HTTP module"): This is partially correct but less efficient. Adding multiple Get Variable modules before each HTTP request results in repetitive configuration and increases maintenance complexity.

Option C ("Set Variable and Get Variable for each HTTP module"): Using individual Set and Get Variable modules increases duplication. This approach requires separate variables for each data point, which is inefficient compared to using the Set/Get Multiple Variables module for multiple fields at once.

Steps to Configure the Solution:

After the Workfront module:

Add aSet Multiple Variablesmodule.

Define all the fields required for the HTTP PUT requests as variables, mapping them from the Workfront module outputs.

Between the Text Parser and the bottom Router:

Add aGet Multiple Variablesmodule.

Retrieve the previously stored variables, ensuring they are accessible for all paths.

In the HTTP modules on each bottom path:

Use the retrieved variables for mapping in the PUT requests.

How This Solves the Problem:

This approach centralizes variable management, making it easier to access and modify data as needed.

It avoids redundancy, as variables are defined once and reused across all paths, reducing the risk of errors and ensuring consistency.

References and Supporting Documentation:

Adobe Workfront Fusion: Variables Module Overview

Workfront Community: Efficient Use of Variables 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.

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.