Adobe AD0-E902 Exam Questions

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:

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.

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 a loop.

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.

Reference: 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:

Understanding the Scenario:

The diagram shows two routes, each leading to an aggregator module (Aggregator 1 and Aggregator 2).

The bundle inspector indicates different output counts for the two aggregators: Aggregator 1 displays 1, and Aggregator 2 displays 10.

Option Analysis:

A . Aggregator 1's route is set to process the 1st bundle only, and Aggregator 2's route is set to process all bundles:

Incorrect. Aggregators process data from their input modules based on their configuration. While filters or limits might be applied earlier in the flow, the scenario does not suggest that the aggregator's configuration explicitly limits bundles in this way.

B . The source module for the aggregators are different:

Correct. The two aggregators receive input from different modules. For example, Aggregator 1 might aggregate bundles from 'Projects,' which outputs a single bundle, while Aggregator 2 aggregates bundles from 'Issues,' which outputs 10 bundles. This explains the differing numbers in the bundle inspector.

C . Aggregator 2 displays a 10 in the bundle inspector because it is set to repeat 10 times:

Incorrect. Aggregators do not 'repeat' a specific number of times. Instead, they process the input bundles passed to them and output a result based on the aggregation logic.

D . The scenario's router is set to only allow projects through the route to Aggregator 1 and only allows tasks through the route to Aggregator 2:

Incorrect. While the router might direct specific bundles (e.g., 'Projects' to Aggregator 1 and 'Issues' to Aggregator 2), the difference in bundle counts is determined by the source modules, not by the router's configuration alone.

Why Source Modules Determine Bundle Counts:

Each aggregator processes data from a source module. If the source module outputs different numbers of bundles, the aggregators will show different bundle counts.

In this example, 'Projects' might output only 1 bundle (e.g., 1 project), while 'Issues' outputs 10 bundles (e.g., 10 issues).

How to Verify:

Inspect the source modules feeding into each aggregator. Check the number of bundles they produce during the scenario run.

Confirm that the aggregators are aggregating based on their respective inputs.

Reference: This explanation aligns with Workfront Fusion's handling of bundles and aggregation logic. Differences in bundle counts at the aggregator level are typically due to differences in the source module outputs, as shown in the scenario.