What Data for This Category Looks Like
Software development intelligent due diligence report data comes primarily from financial institutions’ internal code repository commit records, task ledgers from project management tools, third-party open-source component vulnerability notification databases, and compliance audit documents. Update frequency shifts with project progress. Code commit records update in real time with daily submissions. Open-source component vulnerability notifications sync with vulnerability disclosure timelines. Compliance documents update at project milestones or during quarterly audits. A single due diligence report typically includes fields such as project unique identifier, submitter account, commit timestamp, code change line count, dependent component list, associated vulnerability ID, and compliance item inspection results. Most fields are text, number, or enumeration types, with no unified fixed length.
Constraints Imposed on Workflow Orchestration
Large variances in code change line counts may cause single-batch data volume to exceed processing limits, requiring split-batch execution. Format differences across multiple data sources require built-in general format conversion nodes in the workflow to adapt to field naming rules exported by different tools. Real-time updated vulnerability data must be bound to event trigger nodes, which automatically start due diligence processes when new vulnerabilities are disclosed, to meet real-time compliance requirements of financial regulations. Fixed compliance item check rules must be pre-configured as reusable sub-workflows to avoid repeated adjustments. Additionally, custom field requirements from different financial institutions require workflows to support dynamic mapping of global variables, adapting to field differences across projects.
How to Set Configurations
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS | 600 seconds | Software development due diligence reports include large-volume content such as internal code change files and dependency lists of financial institutions, requiring sufficient time to complete parsing |
Recall Count | Top 8 entries | Due diligence must cover multiple types of information including dependent components, vulnerability notifications, and compliance items. Excessive recall increases context processing pressure |
Similarity Threshold | 0.75–0.85 | Balances precision and recall rate for vulnerability matching and compliance item verification, avoiding false matches or missed key information |
Segment Length | 800–1200 characters | Adapts to the compact structure of code change text, avoids damaging the integrity of code logic, and ensures complete semantic understanding |
REQUIRED_GLOBAL_VAR_CHECK | Enabled | Software development due diligence requires fixed verification of required fields such as project ID and dependent component list, to prevent errors from missing parameters after workflow startup |
RETRY_TIMES | 2 retries | Addresses temporary network fluctuations during multi-data source pulling, reducing workflow failure rates. |
The parameter values provided on this page are common starting points for configuration. Actual values are affected by material form, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require case-by-case analysis. It is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three Common Mistakes
- After calling a text extraction component in a workflow, financial compliance-related content pulled from knowledge base references is empty. The cause is that the context association switch for knowledge base recall is not enabled, or the recall count is set too low, resulting in no matching due diligence data being retrieved.
- The workflow runs with an error prompt of
400 Bad Request, using version 4.8.10. The cause is that thePARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDSparameter is not configured correctly, and the code file parsing timeout does not trigger the retry mechanism. - When switching from a workflow with required global variables to another workflow that does not require global variables, a required variable verification error is still triggered. The cause is that the workflow cache does not clear the global variable verification rules, and the variable verification configuration of the current process is not reset during switching.
How to Verify Proper Configuration
- Run a single test workflow, check the processing duration of code files in the parsing log, and confirm that the duration does not exceed the configured
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDSvalue. - Insert a knowledge base recall node, enter a test dependent component name, and verify that the number of recall results and similarity threshold meet expectations.
- After configuring required global variables, start the workflow without filling in variables, confirm that a parameter missing error is triggered, then fill in the correct variables and confirm that the workflow starts normally.
- Simulate a scenario where multi-data source pulling fails, check whether the workflow executes retries according to the configured
RETRY_TIMES, and confirm that the workflow resumes normal operation after retries.
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.