Integrating with a secure 2FA API or service (like Azure MFA, Duo, or others) is the most robust and maintainable approach for unattended robots. It keeps the process fully automated, secure, and auditable. Option 0 breaks unattended execution, Option 3 is fragile and not a standard practice, and Option 4 defeats the purpose of end-to-end automation.

For dynamic applications, resilience is built through multiple strategies: dynamic waits (Wait For or Recovery loops) handle timing issues, while robust attribute matching (e.g., using ‘contains’ or wildcards) and multiple anchors in your element identification guard against minor changes in the application’s structure. Options 0 and 1 are too simplistic and brittle. Option 4 is generally a last resort due to maintenance overhead and fragility.

Hard-coded paths are a major deployment anti-pattern. They will almost certainly cause failures when the process is moved to a different environment (e.g., from Dev to Live), which may have different drive letters or directory structures. Using Data Items (initialized from process inputs or a data source) or Blue Prism’s Environment Variables allows you to externalize these values and configure them per environment, making the process portable and robust.

The best practice is to use a modular design. A main process with a loop controls the flow and iterates over the data. Inside the loop, it calls dedicated business objects, each responsible for interacting with a specific system (Excel, Mainframe, etc.). This makes the process easier to understand, debug, and maintain. Option 0 creates a monolithic, hard-to-read process. Option 1 violates the principle of business object separation. Option 4 is completely unmanageable.

A common issue is that a user may have access to log into the database but not have the specific data manipulation (DML) permissions (like INSERT, UPDATE, EXECUTE) on the particular objects they need to use. This is a more granular security setting than just having a valid login. While Options 1 and 4 are possible, the specific ‘permission denied’ error on a known-good login points directly to insufficient object-level permissions.

Blue Prism provides technology-specific spy modes for a reason. If an application is built with Java (e.g., using Swing or JavaFX), the ‘Java’ mode will hook directly into the Java Access Bridge. For classic Windows applications, ‘Win32’ mode is often more reliable. You should always try the spy mode that matches the application’s technology stack before resorting to less precise methods like Region mode. Option 4 is incorrect for non-web applications.

Blue Prism’s Environment Variables are the designed solution for this scenario. They allow you to externalize configuration settings. Authorized users (like Business Analysts or Support Staff) can update these values through the System Manager (in the Control Room) without needing to open or modify the process diagram in Process Studio, separating configuration from development.

The Control Room session log has different views. The ‘Process’ view shows the high-level flow through the main process. The ‘Object’ view is crucial because it drills down into the internal stages of the business objects that were called. To debug an error within ‘BO_Finance_Update’, you must look at the ‘Object’ view for that specific business object to see which of its internal stages (e.g., a Read, Write, or Navigate stage) failed and what the detailed error message was.

Using the defined Inputs and Outputs pages formalizes the contract of what the business object needs and what it provides. This is a core principle of encapsulation. It makes the object self-contained, reusable (other processes can call it knowing its interface), and easier to debug. The main process becomes cleaner, showing only the flow and data passed between objects, not their internal complexity.

Integrating with a secure 2FA API or service (like Azure MFA, Duo, or others) is the most robust and maintainable approach for unattended robots. It keeps the process fully automated, secure, and auditable. Option 0 breaks unattended execution, Option 3 is fragile and not a standard practice, and Option 4 defeats the purpose of end-to-end automation.0