Practice Free AD0-E902 Adobe Workfront Fusion Professional Exam Questions Answers With Explanation

Key Scenario Settings:

Adobe Workfront Fusion provides settings to control the execution of scenarios. These settings impact how the scenario behaves when it runs, especially under conditions such as errors or long-running processes.

Explanation of Correct Options:

Option A ("Number of consecutive errors"):

This setting determines the maximum number of consecutive errors allowed before the scenario execution halts.

By adjusting this value, users can define how resilient the scenario is to temporary failures in modules or external systems.

Option B ("Max number of cycles"):

This setting limits the maximum number of cycles (iterations) the scenario performs in a single run.

It prevents scenarios from running indefinitely or consuming excessive resources in cases of large datasets.

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

Option C ("Number of bundles per run"): This value is not adjustable in the scenario settings. Instead, the system dynamically determines how many bundles (data packets) are processed per cycle.

Option D ("Number of consecutive runs"): Workfront Fusion does not have a setting for the number of consecutive runs. Scenarios are executed based on schedules, triggers, or manual execution.

Steps to Adjust Scenario Settings:

Open the scenario in Adobe Workfront Fusion.

Click thegear iconin the top-right corner to accessScenario Settings.

Locate and adjust the following fields:

Number of consecutive errors: Set a value based on acceptable failure tolerance.

Max number of cycles: Specify the maximum number of iterations allowed.

Save and activate the scenario.

References and Supporting Documentation:

Adobe Workfront Fusion Official Documentation: Scenario Settings

Workfront Community: Best Practices for Scenario Optimization

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

B. Incomplete Executions Are Not Stored by Default:

By default, Workfront Fusion does not store incomplete executions unless this setting is explicitly enabled in the scenario's settings.

This feature needs to be activated for troubleshooting and manually resolving incomplete executions later.

D. Resolving Incomplete Executions:

When an incomplete execution is resumed, the scenario picks up from the point of failure and processes the remaining steps with the data bundle that caused the error.

This ensures that the scenario completes its intended process without restarting entirely.

Why Not Other Options?

A. When incomplete executions are togged, a user must review the History tab to understand the error and then manually run the entire scenario to resolve: This is incorrect because incomplete executions do not require restarting the entire scenario; they continue from the point of failure.

C. Incomplete executions should be avoided because they only give visibility into better scenario design: This statement is misleading. Incomplete executions are often inevitable and provide critical insights into handling errors and improving scenarios.

References:

Adobe Workfront Fusion Documentation: Working with Incomplete Executions

Experience League Community: How to Enable and Manage Incomplete Executions in Fusion

Understanding the Expression:

The provided expression uses the ifempty function:

ifempty(2.data:types[]; "No Type")

Structure of the Expression:

The first parameter, 2.data:types[], is an array being checked for content.

The second parameter, "No Type", is the fallback value returned if the array is empty or undefined.

Purpose of ifempty: This function checks if the given value is empty or undefined. If the value is not empty, it returns the value. If the value is empty, it returns the fallback text ("No Type").

Expected Module Outputs:

A. Non-empty array:

If 2.data:types[] is a non-empty array, the function returns the array as-is.

C. Text value 'No Type':

If 2.data:types[] is empty or undefined, the function returns the fallback text value "No Type".

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

Option B ("An empty field"):

The ifempty function does not return an empty field. If the value is empty, it substitutes it with the fallback text ("No Type").

Option D ("Collections comma separated"):

The function operates on arrays, but it does not format the output as comma-separated collections. The raw array is returned if non-empty.

Key Use Cases:

This type of function is frequently used in Workfront Fusion to handle situations where data might be missing or incomplete, ensuring scenarios continue to run smoothly without errors caused by undefined or empty fields.

Example Outputs:

If 2.data:types[] = ["Type1", "Type2"]: The function returns ["Type1", "Type2"].

If 2.data:types[] = [] or undefined: The function returns "No Type".

References and Supporting Documentation:

Adobe Workfront Fusion Functions Reference

Workfront Community: Handling Empty Fields with ifempty

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.

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.

Step by Step Comprehensive Detailed Explanation:

Scenario Context:

The goal is to assign a user to all tasks on a project where the role is Copywriter.

The chosen method should minimize the number of operations to ensure efficiency.

Option Analysis:

A. Searching for all assignments in the project where the role is Copywriter and add the user to each assignment:

This approach involves searching assignments, iterating through them, and adding the user individually. Each iteration generates multiple operations, making it less efficient.

B. Searching for Tasks in the project with the Copywriter role and assign the user to each task:

Similar to Option A, this approach also requires iterating through tasks and assigning users one by one, resulting in a higher number of operations.

C. Using the Misc Action module for the project to assign all Copywriter assignments to the user:

Correct. The Misc Action module can perform bulk actions (e.g., assigning users to roles) in a single operation.

This method is the most efficient, as it minimizes the number of operations while achieving the same result.

Why the Misc Action Module is Best:

Efficiency: Bulk operations reduce the number of API calls and iterations.

Performance: Using fewer operations optimizes scenario execution and reduces resource consumption.

Simplicity: Avoids the complexity of iterating through tasks or assignments individually.

Implementation:

Add a Misc Action module to the scenario.

Configure the module to assign the user to all tasks with the Copywriter role on the selected project.

Test the module to ensure it performs the bulk assignment as expected.

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:

Problem Summary:

The organization requires a process to track every project update made by Fusion to meet compliance standards.

This process must provide a clear audit trail of updates, including details like user and timestamp.

Option Analysis:

A. Use reporting on the Last Updated by ID and Last Update Date:

While this provides basic reporting, it only reflects the most recent update and does not maintain a comprehensive history of changes over time.

B. Update the External Reference ID with User ID and Timestamp:

Updating the External Reference ID could cause issues if this field is used for other purposes. It is not designed for logging multiple updates.

C. Create a Note record related to the record updated:

Correct. Creating a Note record for each update ensures that every change is logged with relevant details (e.g., user, timestamp, update reason). This approach creates a full audit trail that is easily accessible and reportable.

Why Note Records are Best:

Audit Trail: Notes provide a clear and searchable history of updates for each project.

Compliance: Ensures compliance by documenting who made what changes and when.

Flexibility: Notes can include custom details such as update reasons or additional context, making them more robust than standard fields.

Implementation:

In the Fusion scenario, add a module to create a Note record after each update.

Populate the Note with relevant details, such as:

User ID ({lastUpdatedBy})

Timestamp ({lastUpdateDate})

Description of the change.

Understanding the Image and Context:

The image provided represents anHTTP modulein Workfront Fusion with a URL that dynamically references various data points (e.g., parameterID, customer.domain, emailAddr).

The structure of the URL indicates a call to the Workfront API (/api/v1.0/), using parameters to pass dynamic data such as parameterID, username, and password.

Why Option A ("Custom API Call") is Correct:

The HTTP module shown in the image is acustom API callbecause it interacts with Workfront's API endpoints by passing dynamic parameters through the URL.

Custom API Callmodules allow users to manually configure requests to endpoints in cases where no predefined Workfront Fusion module exists for the operation. This is evident in the example, where specific fields like parameterID, customer.domain, and others are manually mapped to the API URL.

Example Use Case: Dynamically creating custom form field options by sending a POST/PUT request to the Workfront API with specific parameters (like label and value) for each environment.

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

Option B ("Misc Action"): This refers to predefined actions in Workfront Fusion for handling simple tasks. The HTTP module is not categorized under Misc Actions as it involves direct API interaction.

Option C ("Read Related Records"): This module is used to fetch data related to Workfront objects (e.g., related tasks or documents). It doesn’t allow dynamic parameter passing or URL customization as seen here.

Option D ("Search"): The Search module is used for querying Workfront objects based on specific criteria but does not involve making direct API calls or sending HTTP requests with custom parameters.

Steps to Configure a Custom API Call in Workfront Fusion:

Add theHTTP Moduleto your scenario.

Select the appropriate HTTP method (e.g., GET, POST, PUT). In this case, aPOSTorPUTmethod would be used to create or update custom form fields.

Enter the API endpoint in theURLfield, as shown in the image.

Map dynamic values to the parameters by referencing fields from previous modules in the scenario. For instance:

customer.domain: Extracted from prior steps.

parameterID, label, and value: Dynamically passed based on input data.

Authenticate the request using a username and password or an API token.

Test the module to ensure the API call works as expected.

How This Solves the Problem:

By using a Custom API Call (via the HTTP module), the user can dynamically interact with the Workfront API to create or modify custom form field options across multiple customer environments, passing the required parameters programmatically.

References and Supporting Documentation:

Adobe Workfront Fusion HTTP Module Documentation

Workfront API Documentation

Workfront Fusion Community Forum: Using HTTP Module for API Calls