What Data for This Category Looks Like
Core data for optical modules comes from factory parameter documents of communication equipment manufacturers, carrier centralized procurement tender announcements, optical communication industry standard specifications, and third-party test reports. Data update cycles follow manufacturer firmware iterations, industry standard updates, or changes to procurement plans, with no fixed weekly or monthly schedule. A single due diligence document typically includes fields such as model identifier, transmission rate, operating power consumption, operating temperature range, interface type, and compliance certification number. Rate units are Gbps, power consumption units are watts, temperature units are degrees Celsius. Some documents also include raw bit error rate data from link tests.
Constraints Imposed on Workflow Orchestration
Dispersed data sources with no fixed update cycle require workflows to support flexible configuration of multi-source data pull nodes. Call manufacturer data interfaces, public procurement platform crawlers, and standard document parsing tools as required. Fields include multiple technical parameters with fixed units. This requires workflows to include built-in unit verification nodes. These nodes match formats for parameters such as rate and power consumption. Some documents include raw test data. This requires workflows to include data cleaning nodes. These nodes perform standardized conversion on unstructured raw data such as bit error rates. Workflows must also adapt to layout differences across manufacturer documents to avoid misaligned parsed fields.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
RAG Recall Count | 8–12 entries | Optical module technical documents have many parameters. Recall enough entries to cover core fields such as model, rate, and power consumption, and avoid missing critical parameters |
Database Connection Timeout | 600 seconds | Some optical module data is stored in enterprise-grade supply chain databases. Adapt to long connection scenarios, and avoid timeouts caused by overly slow data pulls |
MCP Tool Call Retries | 2 retries | Some manufacturer API interfaces have temporary rate limits. Setting limited retries reduces the probability of call failures. Do not use too many retries to avoid triggering secondary rate limits |
Workflow Node Timeout Threshold | 900 seconds | Workflows that include multi-source data pulls and document parsing need sufficient time to complete structured conversion of standard documents |
Share Link Authentication Toggle | Enable based on team permissions | Due diligence reports involve sensitive technical parameters. Use authentication to control access scope. This configuration item is located in the "Share Settings" module of the workflow publishing page |
Plugin Export Format | JSON structured format | Optical module parameters need to be transferred across tools. JSON format preserves field and unit information, and avoids parsing loss |
The parameter values provided on this page are common starting points for configuration. Actual values are affected by material format, data volume, and business rules. Analyze specific issues on a case-by-case basis. It is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three Common Mistakes
- Issue: Optical module parameters returned after workflow runtime have incorrect units or misaligned fields. Cause: No
field verification rulenode configured. No unit matching or field mapping performed on RAG-recalled document parameters. This causes parameter formats from different manufacturers to be mixed. - Issue: The authentication toggle cannot be found in the workflow share configuration page in version v4.9.11. Cause: The authentication toggle for this version is collapsed by default in the "Advanced Share Settings" panel. The configuration item is not visible without expanding the panel.
- Issue: Database connection plugin call time in the new version of FastGPT far exceeds that of older versions. The older version only took 0.2 seconds. Cause: The
database connection timeoutconfiguration was not adjusted. The default timeout threshold for the new version differs from the old version. The workflow also has no parallel data pull nodes configured, causing multi-source data to execute serially.
How to Confirm Proper Configuration
- Manually trigger the workflow once. Check the returned parameter list. Confirm that core fields such as model, transmission rate, and operating power consumption are included, and that units comply with optical module technical specifications.
- Check the workflow share settings panel. Confirm that the authentication toggle status matches team access permission requirements. Test access using a non-authorized account to verify.
- View the workflow runtime logs. Confirm that database connection node latency meets expectations, with no continuous timeout errors. Compare runtime logs from similar workflows to adjust configurations.
- Export a single plugin and import it into a test workflow. Confirm that associated database connection information and parameter configurations are fully retained, with no missing data.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-14.