What this category's data looks like
This category's data looks like this: For undergraduate program setup and dynamic adjustment, the materials include program setup application forms, talent training plans, and expert review opinions. The application form records the program name, code, program length, and application date; the training plan carries the course structure, credit count, and revision date; the review opinions reflect expert signatures and receipts. The materials come from on-campus application and external review stages, and are updated by academic year or adjustment batch, with versions advancing along with review rounds. When entering this function, the application form serves as the main record providing the field baseline, while the training plan and review opinions serve as cross-verification sources, used to compare whether the name, quantity, date, and signatures of the same record are consistent, and to support exception tracing.
Configuration and implementation checks
Configuration and implementation checks: This step is executed by the HTTP node in the workflow, outputting 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.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup application form | Whether the program name, code, program length, and application date are consistent with the training plan | Take the application form fields and dates, compare them item by item with the training plan, mark inconsistencies as exceptions, and record the source |
| Talent training plan | Whether the course structure, credit count, and revision date match the application form and review opinions | Check the version number and revision date, and confirm that the quantity and date of the same record are consistent in both materials |
| Expert review opinions | Whether expert signatures and receipts are complete, and whether the opinion date is synchronized with the application batch | Check the signature column and receipt records; entries missing signatures or receipts go into the exception list |
| Request address and path parameters | Placeholder variables can be resolved into actual values | View the fully rendered address in the request preview, and check the source of variables |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name or quantity of the same record does not match between the application form and the training plan. Cause: The two materials are maintained separately, without field-level cross-comparison.
- Symptom: The review opinion version is not synchronized, and the revision date is misaligned with the application batch. Cause: After the version update, the main record was not written back, and old-version content was referenced.
- Symptom: Expert signatures or receipts are missing, and exception entries cannot be traced back to the source materials. Cause: Material collection is incomplete, and the signature column was not verified before review.
How to verify the setup
How to verify the setup: Acceptance for this function: preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, then compare the result against one sample; check the value sources of Authorization and responseData.
Business test: create one exception record and see whether it can be traced back to the source materials
- In the variables panel, check each placeholder source and confirm that
variablescan be resolved into actual values - Use one sample request to compare whether the returned fields are consistent with the external interface agreement