What Data for This Category Includes
The data for this category originates primarily from health supervision information systems, medical institution electronic registration systems, complaint reporting platforms, and law enforcement inspection records. It is updated on a monthly basis. Commonly processed documents include supervision inspection forms, medical institution practice licenses, rectification notices, supervision opinions, and penalty case files. Data fields cover institutional qualification information, on-site inspection items, rectification tracking records, and penalty-related content. There are no unified fixed units; values adjust based on document type and business scenario.
What Constraints These Characteristics Impose on HTTP Interfaces and External Systems
Monthly updated data requires interfaces to support batch pulling and incremental synchronization logic. This prevents repeated full data pulls that consume excess system resources. Multiple types of business documents use different interface request parameters. Corresponding request headers and return parsing rules must be configured per document category. Law enforcement inspection records and complaint reporting data have significant field differences. Interfaces must support dynamic field mapping to adapt to varying data structures. Data links to institutional and personnel qualifications. Interface calls must carry compliance verification parameters. This ensures returned data meets compliance requirements for supervision scenarios. Failed interface calls must also trigger fast alerts. This avoids delays to rectification tracking and penalty process progress.
Configuration Guidelines
Reference only; verify against the target FastGPT release and deployment documentation.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Interface Timeout Setting | 600 seconds | Matches time requirements for monthly data pulling and single-batch inspection record parsing |
| Load Balancing Configuration | Automatically switch based on node load, maximum concurrency 50 requests/second | Adapts to concurrent scenarios for batch data pulling across multiple institutions |
| Disconnection Switch Strategy | Automatically retry 3 times, retry interval 10 seconds | Addresses interface call failures caused by temporary network fluctuations |
Authorization | Carry authentication string in fixed Bearer Token format | Complies with standard interface authentication specifications for health supervision systems |
| responseData | Split and parse core fields by document type | Adapts to return data processing logic for multiple types of business documents |
Three Common Misconfiguration Issues
- The
getaddrinfo EAI_AGAINerror appears, and the target interface domain name cannot be resolved. The cause is a domain name resolution timeout in the interface proxy configuration, or expired DNS cache on proxy nodes. - Interface calls experience lag, and single-batch request responses time out. The cause is that no load balancing policy is configured, and traffic concentrated on a single proxy node causes resource exhaustion.
- The frontend shows no response after calling the interface, and no obvious system resource usage is observed. The cause is that no asynchronous processing is configured for interface requests, and synchronous calls block the frontend rendering thread.
How to Confirm Proper Configuration
- Call the test interface, check if the returned
responseDatafield includes core information of the corresponding business document, such as institution name and inspection item content. - Simulate multiple concurrent requests, verify that the load balancing policy takes effect, and requests are automatically assigned to different proxy nodes.
- Disconnect the proxy node network, verify that the disconnection switch strategy automatically triggers retries and restores the connection.
- Check interface logs, confirm that the
Authorizationparameter is correctly carried in the request header, with no omissions or format errors.
The values provided are common starting points, and should be evaluated against respective deployment samples.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-28.