What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the student disciplinary and appeal handling category. The material sources are three types of text—disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements—along with accompanying forms. The update cadence follows the progress of the disciplinary process: fact materials come first, and decision documents and appeal statements follow at their respective nodes. Field characteristics center on student name, student ID, name of the disciplinary fact, quantity, date of occurrence, disciplinary basis, signature, and receipt. When entering the form input function, the disciplinary fact materials serve as the original source of fact fields, the disciplinary decision documents serve as the source of conclusion and date fields, and the appeal statements serve as the source of demand and signature fields. Together, the three constitute the underlying data for a signable material draft and handover record.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the form input node (interaction node) in the workflow, which outputs the field values entered by the user (passed to subsequent nodes after submission). The signable material draft and handover record are completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Whether the fields cover student name, student ID, name of the disciplinary fact, quantity, and date of occurrence, and are consistent with the corresponding record in the disciplinary decision document | Check the field names one by one in the node configuration, and use formInput to reference the fields in a trial run to confirm that subsequent nodes receive the values |
| Disciplinary decision document | Whether the conclusion, disciplinary basis, and date are in sync with the versions of the fact materials and appeal statement, and whether the signature and receipt are complete | Check the required markers and date fields, and verify whether the same record name, quantity, and date match across the three materials |
| Appeal statement | Whether the demand, signature, and receipt fields are complete, and whether they can be retrieved by subsequent nodes after submission | Use userSelect to select the appeal type and submit, then check the field values retrieved by subsequent nodes |
| Handover record | Whether the responsible person, version, and date are consistent, and whether the receipt step leaves a trace | Draft one according to the template and complete one handover to see whether missing items are blocked |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same disciplinary fact do not match across two materials. Cause: Fields are not referenced uniformly, and each is filled in manually, causing records to diverge.
- Symptom: The disciplinary decision document has been revised, but the appeal statement still references the old version. Cause: Versions are not synchronized, and there is a lack of a unified field source and date verification.
- Symptom: Materials missing a signature or receipt still proceed to the next step. Cause: Key fields are not marked as required, and no one verifies the receipt status after submission.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this function: fill it out once and submit, check the field values retrieved by subsequent nodes, and confirm that formInputResult and selectResult, and required items are all passed as expected.
Business test: draft one according to the template and complete one handover to see whether missing items are blocked.
- Check the field names and required markers one by one in the node configuration, and confirm that key material fields are marked as required.
- Reference the corresponding fields in subsequent nodes and run a trial to confirm that values can be retrieved after submission and that the conversation does not get stuck in the interaction state.