What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of investigating and handling academic misconduct reports. The materials include three categories: report materials, investigation reports, and expert appraisal opinions. Report materials are registered by the receiving party with a number, date, and receipt; investigation reports are filled in by the investigation team with conclusions, signatures, and an attachment list; expert appraisal opinions are signed by experts with the date noted. In the version ledger, the three categories of materials each play a different role: report materials serve as the original basis, investigation reports serve as the process conclusion, and expert appraisal opinions serve as professional support. The update cadence advances with the investigation stages, and each supplementation or review produces a new version. Field characteristics center on name, quantity, date, signature, and receipt, and it is necessary to ensure that the current version is unique, old versions are traceable, and references are synchronized.
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 by subsequent nodes from the response, or handled by an external system according to the agreement to complete the rest. The HTTP node is only responsible for sending requests according to the agreement; it does not replace the external system in writing to the database or approving.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Report materials | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures are consistent with the ledger | Check the name, quantity, date, signature, and receipt, and compare the fields returned by responseData |
| Investigation reports | Whether the version number is unique and old versions are traceable | Check the current version number and historical versions, and inspect the placeholder source of variables |
| Expert appraisal opinions | Whether references are updated in sync | After changing one piece of content, compare the referenced text with the authentication result of the Authorization request header |
| HTTP request body | Whether the fields are consistent with the external interface agreement | Use a sample request to compare the return, and check the responseData fields |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the report materials and the investigation report. Cause: The two places are entered separately, and the ledger is not used as the single source of truth.
- Symptom: After the investigation report is updated, the expert appraisal opinion still references the old version. Cause: The version was not synchronized, and the reference was not refreshed with the change.
- Symptom: The report materials lack a receipt or the investigation report lacks a signature. Cause: The signature and receipt fields were not verified during the handoff steps.
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.
Business test: change one piece of content and see whether the version number and references are updated in sync.
- In the variables panel, check the source of each placeholder and confirm that the request URL and path parameters can be parsed into actual values.
- Check the request header names and value sources, and confirm that the request body fields are consistent with the external interface agreement.