What this category's data looks like
The Q&A acceptance for regular higher education institution admissions enrollment filing draws on three types of materials: enrollment plans, filing rules, and admission rosters. The enrollment plan provides the major group, planned number, and subject selection requirements; the filing rules provide the batch, filing ratio, and tie-breaking treatment; the admission roster provides the candidate number, name, score, major, and signed receipt. The three types of materials update at different cadences: plans adjust with batches, rules are issued annually, and rosters are backfilled by round. After the materials enter the Q&A acceptance and missing-item follow-up function, the plan and rules serve as the basis for judgment, and the roster serves as the result evidence; whichever item is missing from the question is followed up with the questioner, and once completed it is forwarded together with the acceptance record to the handler for processing. The field characteristics are concentrated in four categories: name, quantity, date, and signature. When the same record does not match across two materials, it is first put on hold and then followed up.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the HTTP node in the workflow, which outputs the response body, status code, and returned fields. The "acceptance record and completed question items" are parsed from the response by subsequent nodes, or handled by an external system according to the agreement to complete the rest. The HTTP node is only responsible for sending the request and retrieving the result; it does not replace the external system in writing to the database or approving.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enrollment plan | Whether the major group, planned number, and subject selection requirements are consistent with the filing rules' definitions | Compare the name and quantity of the same major group in the two materials; for the date, use the plan publication date |
| Filing rules | Whether the batch, filing ratio, and tie-breaking treatment are stated and carry a signature or receipt | Check the rule items one by one against the actual filing results in the roster; if a signature is missing, put it on hold and follow up |
| Admission roster | Whether the candidate number, name, score, and major match the plan and rules | Spot-check the name and quantity of the same record, and verify whether the receipts are complete |
| Request and variables | Whether the placeholders in the path parameters, request body, and request headers can be parsed into actual values | View the fully rendered address in the request preview, check the request header names and value sources, and trace the origin of variables in the variables panel |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The major name for the same candidate does not match between the roster and the plan. Cause: The two materials' versions are not synchronized, and one side was filled in according to the old batch's definitions.
- Symptom: The filing quantity figures are inconsistent between the two materials. Cause: After the rules were adjusted, the plan was not backfilled, and the date and signature were not updated either.
- Symptom: The acceptance record lacks a receipt or the signature field is empty. Cause: The material circulation step was not closed-loop, and the missing item was only discovered during follow-up.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, then compare the result against one sample; the request header carries Authorization, the response body takes responseData, and the placeholder origin is traced via variables.
Business test: submit a question missing key information and see whether it follows up first before answering.
- In the request preview, check the fully rendered address and request header names, and confirm that all placeholder variables can be traced to their origin.
- Use one sample request to compare the returned fields against the external interface agreement; if empty fields or timeouts are found, first check the variable sources.