Artifact Fields and Analysis Options
What this page helps with
Artifacts are where users inspect concrete integration objects in detail. This page explains which visible fields matter most and which analysis options are useful in practice.
Main table fields
The artifact list usually highlights:
- name
- type
- package
- version
- deploy status
- deployed by
- status
- label or tag
These fields help answer the first operational questions:
- which artifact is this
- where does it belong
- is the visible version plausible
- is it deployed as expected
Important detail fields
When a row is expanded, users typically look for:
- identifiers
- artifact type
- package relation
- version and deployment timestamps
- sender and receiver where relevant
- last content-check information
These values are most useful when troubleshooting inconsistencies or comparing environments.
Metadata
Metadata is helpful when the visible fields are not enough.
Typical use:
- compare technical detail between artifacts
- verify whether a loaded object contains the expected structure
- export or copy metadata for discussion or follow-up analysis
Where-used analysis
Where-used information is one of the most valuable artifact tools because it helps estimate impact before a change.
Use it when you need to know:
- where a value or object is referenced
- which iFlows are affected by a change
- whether a planned adjustment has a wider consequence
Content checks and hashes
Content-check values help validate whether an artifact changed and when the last verification happened.
Treat these values as analysis aids, especially when:
- versions look inconsistent
- content may have changed unexpectedly
- you need to compare known history with the current state
History and older versions
Older-version information is helpful when teams need to understand:
- whether a regression appeared after a change
- how many historical versions exist
- whether an artifact has changed recently
Common mistakes
- reading deploy status without also checking version and package
- using metadata too early when the main table already answers the question
- skipping where-used analysis before productive changes