What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of exception tracing and manual review in primary and secondary school enrollment organizations. The three types of materials—enrollment plans, application material lists, and admission lists—each play different roles in the flow: the enrollment plan defines batches, school districts, and time nodes; the application material list records student names, ID numbers, number of material copies, submission dates, and receipt signatures; the admission list carries the proposed admission results, list versions, and the signature approval of the person in charge. Material sources are mostly exports from academic affairs systems, scans of paper receipts, and forms issued by district-level platforms, with the update rhythm concentrated at three nodes: application deadline, review deadline, and admission announcement. In terms of field characteristics, the same student may appear with different names, quantities, or dates across the three materials, and version numbers and signature fields are often out of sync due to supplementary admissions, adjustments, or post-announcement revisions; after entering this function, they must be compared item by item and the original records retained.
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 exception list and review conclusions 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 does not replace the external system in writing to the database or approving; it is only responsible for sending requests according to the agreement and returning the results.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enrollment plan | The batches, school districts, and time nodes in the plan must correspond item by item with the submission dates in the application material list and the announcement dates in the admission list; field names and dates must not contradict each other | In the request preview, check the complete rendered address and confirm that the plan number and batch are correctly taken as path parameter values |
| Application material list | The student names, ID numbers, number of material copies, and receipt signatures in the list must be consistent with the original scanned copies; entries missing signatures or receipts must be marked as exceptions | In the variables panel, check the source of each placeholder and confirm that the list fields come from the output of preceding nodes and are not hard-coded |
| Admission list | The list version number, admission status, and signature of the person in charge must be consistent with the corresponding records in the enrollment plan and application material list; entries whose versions are not synchronized must be included in the exceptions | Use a sample request to compare the response and check whether the list fields in responseData match the list records item by item |
| HTTP node | The Authorization in the request headers is passed in according to the external system's requirements; the request body fields are consistent with the external interface agreement; path parameters, request body, and request headers can all use variables placeholders | Check the request header names and value sources, and confirm that the authentication information matches the external interface requirements |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, ID number, or number of material copies of the same student does not match between the application material list and the admission list. Cause: The two materials are entered separately by different nodes, and no item-by-item comparison has been made based on the original receipt.
- Symptom: The enrollment plan has updated batches or time nodes, but the application material list and admission list still use the old version. Cause: The versions are not synchronized, and after revision the latest version identifier was not reissued or was not passed in the request body.
- Symptom: The review conclusion lacks the reviewer's signature or receipt, and the exception list cannot be handed to the person in charge for handling. Cause: The review step did not retain signature evidence, or the receipt was not passed along with the request body, causing the external system to receive empty fields.
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; confirm that the placeholders in the path parameters, request headers, and request body can all be resolved into actual values, and that Authorization, variables, and responseData are traceable in the preview and response.
Business test: create an exception record, see whether it can be traced back to the source material, and confirm that the names, quantities, dates, and signatures in the three materials—enrollment plan, application material list, and admission list—can correspond item by item.
- In the variables panel, check the source of each placeholder, confirm that it comes from a global variable, system variable, or the output of a preceding node, and check the complete rendered address in the request preview.
- Use a sample request to compare the response, check the status code and returned fields, confirm that the request body fields are consistent with the external interface agreement, and that exception entries can be traced to the original records and review signatures.