What this category's data looks like
This category's data covers three types of materials: self-assessment reports, issue lists, and rectification plans. Fields include indicator name, self-assessment conclusion, issue description, rectification measures, responsible person, completion date, and signed receipt. The materials mostly come from kindergarten self-entry, responsible inspector feedback, and system exports. The update cadence follows the self-assessment cycle and rectification milestones. It is common for the same record to have mismatched names, quantities, and dates across two materials, with versions not synchronized, or missing signatures or receipts. When the three types of materials enter the HTTP interface and external systems, they play different roles: the self-assessment report serves as the main record carrying conclusions, the issue list serves as sub-items carrying to-dos, and the rectification plan serves as a tracking item carrying deadlines and responsible persons.
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 "version ledger and change records" are parsed from the response by subsequent nodes, or handled by the external system per agreement to complete the rest.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Self-assessment report | Indicator name, self-assessment conclusion, and signed receipt are consistent across the three types of materials | Take one self-assessment record, compare the names, quantities, and dates in the issue list and rectification plan, and check whether the signature and receipt are complete |
| Issue list | Issue description, responsible person, and completion date can be traced to the current version | Reference the output of the preceding node in the request body via variables, and compare the returned fields with the original text of the list |
| Rectification plan | Rectification measures and deadline references are synchronized, and the old version can be traced | After changing one piece of content, check whether the version number and reference fields in responseData are updated synchronously |
| Request header | Authentication information is passed in per the external system's requirements | Check the Authorization name and the source of its value, and confirm it is non-empty and not expired |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same record has mismatched names, quantities, and dates in the self-assessment report and the issue list. Cause: The two are maintained separately, without using the current version as the single source of reference.
- Symptom: The rectification plan content was changed, but the self-assessment report still references the old version. Cause: The version number was not incremented with the change, and the reference was not updated synchronously.
- Symptom: The external system receives empty fields or a missing signed receipt. Cause: The request body fields are inconsistent with the interface agreement, or the signed receipt was not submitted together with the materials.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, then compare the result against one sample to confirm that the variables and responseData fields can be parsed.
Business test: change one piece of content and see whether the version number and reference are updated synchronously.
- In the variable panel, check the source of each placeholder and confirm that the placeholders in the request URL, request header, and request body can all be resolved to actual values.
- Use one sample request to compare the response, check that the fields are consistent with the external interface agreement, and record the current version number and change time.