Using an exclusive gateway to explicitly model the rejection path with dedicated activities is a best practice in workflow design. It ensures the rejection logic is visible, maintainable, and allows for proper actions (like notifications and status updates) to be taken before the process ends, creating a complete audit trail. Other options either overcomplicate the design, mix logic in script tasks (less transparent), or use events that don’t fulfill the requirement.

This is the standard and most efficient pattern for search functionality with backend data in SAP Build Apps. The ‘Auto-refresh’ feature ensures the variable (and thus the bound list) updates automatically when the filter input changes. The filter is applied at the OData query level, which is efficient as it returns only relevant data from the server. Option B is inefficient for large datasets, Option C is a manual implementation of what auto-refresh does, and Option D is very inefficient as it loads all data client-side.

In SAP’s low-code/no-code lifecycle management, ‘Publishing’ creates a stable, versioned artifact (a release). Only released versions can be deployed to a production runtime environment. Deployment alone (Option A) is not possible without a release. The movement between spaces/accounts (Options B & C) describes project migration, but the operational act of making a specific version live in production is achieved through publish and deploy.

When all necessary data is available from a single API call, the most efficient and simple method is to load it once into a variable. The dynamic filtering for the dependent dropdown (Team) can then be handled entirely client-side using a formula on the options property. This provides instant user feedback without additional network requests. Options B and C add unnecessary complexity and latency. Option D introduces a database when the data is already available from an API.

This is the standard BPMN pattern for asynchronous service integration. The ‘Send Task’ dispatches the request. The process flow then proceeds to a ‘Receive Task’, which acts as a waiting point specifically designed to listen for an incoming message (the callback) before continuing. This cleanly models the wait state. Option B does not wait, Option C misuses a user task for a system event, and Option D uses events which are less explicit for this service-callback pattern in this context.

Conditional visibility via a formula on the component’s ‘Visible’ property is the most maintainable and scalable approach. It keeps the logic for a single component co-located with that component, uses a single page, and avoids code/UI duplication. Creating separate pages (Option B) or views (Option D) leads to duplication and maintenance overhead. Duplicating the entire page (Option C) is the least maintainable option.

To make a task appear in the inbox of a group of users, you must specify the ‘Candidate Groups’ property with the appropriate group ID (e.g., ‘Finance Approvers’). The ‘Subject’ is also crucial as it is the primary identifier shown in the inbox list, helping users understand the task. ‘Candidate Users’ is for specific individuals, not groups. While other properties like Form, Priority, and Due Date are important, they are not the primary drivers for routing the task to a group’s inbox.

The ‘Refresh data’ action is the explicit, reliable method to tell a data variable to re-fetch its data from the source (the OData service). This ensures the UI list shows the current server state, including the newly created record. You cannot assume real-time capabilities (Option B). Navigation (Option C) is a poor user experience. Manually appending data (Option D) is error-prone and bypasses the single source of truth, potentially causing inconsistencies.

The in-editor ‘Test’ feature is the primary debugging tool. It lets you run a single step (like the service task) with specific inputs, bypassing the rest of the process. This provides focused, detailed execution logs and error traces, making it the most efficient first step to isolate the root cause (e.g., is it the connection, the input data, or the response handling?). Checking connections (Option B) is a valid secondary step. Redeploying (Option C) or adding debug scripts (Option D) are less targeted and more time-consuming initial approaches.

Using an exclusive gateway to explicitly model the rejection path with dedicated activities is a best practice in workflow design. It ensures the rejection logic is visible, maintainable, and allows for proper actions (like notifications and status updates) to be taken before the process ends, creating a complete audit trail. Other options either overcomplicate the design, mix logic in script tasks (less transparent), or use events that don’t fulfill the requirement.0