What the data for this category looks like
Core data for code security auditing comes from source code repositories, dependency lists, SAST tools, and public vulnerability databases. Updates are triggered alongside project versions or upon completion of a single audit task. Daily output documents include code audit reports, vulnerability proofs, repair suggestions, and retest records. Fields cover vulnerability ID, risk level, associated code line numbers, repair solutions, retest results, and more. Data volume fluctuates with project scale, with no fixed statistical threshold. Updates are only made based on the completion status of audit tasks, and a corresponding archived document is generated for each completed audit.
What constraints these characteristics impose on the "workflow orchestration" link
The need to pull data from multiple sources requires workflows to support parallel calls to different data source nodes, avoiding timeouts caused by serial waiting. The requirement to generate documents with fixed fields requires pre-configuring variables mapping rules to ensure core information can be accurately extracted and summarized. The update rhythm triggered by tasks requires workflows to be bound to project version submission events as startup conditions, adapting to the update logic of audit data. The high-risk consequences of errors require configuring failure retries and alert nodes to prevent high-severity vulnerabilities from entering production launch phases. The most time-consuming dangerous function localization and data flow tracing links need to be split into parallel nodes to reduce overall execution time.
How to configure these settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger Condition | Triggered by project version submission events | Matches the rhythm of code security audit data updating alongside versions |
variables mapping rules | Extract vulnerability ID, risk level, and code line number as global variables | Matches the standard field structure of code audit reports |
| Data Source Pull Nodes | Pull source code repository, dependency list, and vulnerability database data in parallel | Covers all data sources and reduces serial execution time |
| Parallel Task Limit | 2 parallel tasks | Matches the processing load of the two most time-consuming audit links |
| Failure Retry Strategy | Retry 2 times, with a 60-second interval | Addresses scenarios where SAST tool calls fail temporarily |
nodeId Binding | Bind the retest record node ID to the repair suggestion output node | Ensures the audit process is closed-loop and associates retest data |
Three common misconfigurations
- Symptom: Workflow outputs empty fields. Cause:
variablesmapping rules are not correctly configured, and core fields from the code audit report are not extracted. - Symptom: Workflow calls to the database time out. Cause: A reasonable parallel task limit is not set, and simultaneous resource usage from multiple data source pulls causes timeouts.
- Symptom: Workflow output format does not meet summary requirements. Cause: The output format of
variablesextracted fields is not clearly defined, leading to messy document formatting.
How to confirm the configuration is correct
- Trigger a project version submission event, check if the FastGPT v4.17.0 workflow starts automatically.
- View workflow logs to confirm that extracted
variablesincluding vulnerability ID and risk level have valid values. - Verify that parallel nodes start simultaneously, and no timeout errors caused by resource preemption occur.
- Trigger a simulated SAST tool call failure scenario, confirm that the workflow triggers a preset alert after 2 retries.
The values provided here are common starting points and should be measured against the reader's own samples.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-10-19.