AD0-E902 Exam Dumps - Adobe Workfront Fusion Professional

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.

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.

Understanding the Issue:

The user observes that all task due dates are incorrect due to a mismatch in the time zone.

The solution must ensure that the correct time zone is applied universally across all scenarios and dates within the organization's Fusion instance.

Why Option B is Correct:

Fusion Organization's Time Zone Setting:

Changing the time zone at theorganization levelensures that all scenarios within the organization adopt the updated time zone setting.

This change applies globally, making it the simplest and most efficient method to ensure consistency across all dates and scenarios.

This adjustment prevents the need for scenario-specific or localized changes, saving time and reducing errors.

Why the Other Options are Incorrect:

Option A ("Set a variable for every date using formatDate"):

While the formatDate function can adjust time zones for individual dates, applying this approach to every date in every scenario is highly inefficient and error-prone. It does not offer a global solution.

Option C ("Change the scenario's time zone default"):

Scenarios in Fusion do not have a specific "time zone default" setting. The organization’s time zone setting is the controlling factor.

Option D ("Change the time zone in the computer's localization settings"):

Fusion scenarios run on cloud servers, not the user’s local machine. Changing the computer’s time zone would have no effect on the scenarios’ behavior.

Steps to Change the Organization’s Time Zone:

Log in to Adobe Workfront Fusion.

Navigate to theOrganization Settings:

Go to theAdmin Panelor the organization settings section.

Locate theTime Zonesetting.

Select the desired time zone from the dropdown list.

Save the changes.

All scenarios will now adopt the updated time zone setting.

How This Solves the Problem:

Changing the organization's time zone applies a consistent time zone across all dates used in scenarios. This ensures accuracy without requiring individual scenario adjustments or manual interventions.

References and Supporting Documentation:

Adobe Workfront Fusion Official Documentation: Organization Settings

Workfront Community: Best Practices for Time Zone Configuration

Workfront's training on scenario testing emphasizes the importance of a well-structured test plan to ensure scenario reliability and accuracy. The three essential elements include:

B. Description of Expected Behavior:

This provides clarity on what the scenario is supposed to achieve when executed successfully.

It serves as a benchmark for evaluating the outcome of test executions.

C. Specific Event/Trigger per Scenario:

Identifying and testing specific triggers ensures that the scenario starts under the correct conditions.

This is crucial for verifying the proper configuration of the scenario’s start point.

D. Description of Testing Steps:

Outlining step-by-step instructions for the testing process ensures that all aspects of the scenario are tested systematically.

It helps identify potential bottlenecks or areas for improvement in the scenario’s configuration.

Why Not Other Options?

A. Roadmap requirements: This pertains to project planning and is not directly relevant to scenario testing.

E. Executive sponsor expectations: While valuable for overall project alignment, it is not an essential component of a technical test plan.

References:

Workfront Training Materials: Best Practices for Scenario Testing

Experience League Documentation: How to Design and Execute a Test Plan for Workfront Fusion Scenarios

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.

References: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.