This document is written for FastGPT v4.17.0, and explains the permission and data isolation processes for interface integration and data docking scenarios.
What the data for this category looks like
The data for this category mainly comes from customer system interfaces, API documentation, test data, and integration logs. Daily produced documents include interface lists, integration records, field mapping tables, and issue tracking tables. Data is updated daily or per project phase. Most fields include interface addresses, request methods, parameter identifiers, return field definitions, permission verification rules, etc. Data volume varies with integration scale, with no unified fixed threshold.
What constraints do these characteristics impose on permission and data isolation
The characteristics of this category of data impose multiple constraints on the permission and data isolation process. First, data sources involve customer-owned system interfaces, so integration data from different customers must be isolated to prevent cross-tenant data leaks. Second, daily documents include sensitive interface permission rules and field mappings, so access must be restricted to authorized personnel only. Frequently updated integration logs and test data require synchronized permission configuration updates to prevent old permission configurations from overwriting new data. In addition, permission identifiers in field mapping tables must be accurately bound to corresponding interfaces to avoid unauthorized calls.
How to Configure Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Approach | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
teamId | Bind to the exclusive team ID of the project | Distinguish integration projects of different customers to prevent cross-project data access |
tmbId | Associate the identity ID of the interface caller | Accurately limit the scope of callers for a single interface |
| Interface permission verification rules | Configure at the interface granularity | Match the permission definitions in the interface list to prevent unauthorized calls |
| Log access permissions | Only open to core project members | Match the permission scope of the issue tracking table to prevent sensitive log leaks |
| Data cache validity period | 1200 seconds | Adapt to the daily updated data rhythm, balancing performance and data freshness |
| Field mapping permissions | Only open to field maintenance personnel | Match the update permissions of the field mapping table to prevent malicious tampering |
Three Common Configuration Errors
- Phenomenon: After a team member sends an interface integration invitation, the invited party does not receive any notification. Cause: The permission notification rules for team invitations are not configured, or the notification channel is not bound.
- Phenomenon: Cross-customer integration logs appear in the interface of unauthorized projects. Cause: The
teamIdparameter is not used to bind the exclusive project team, resulting in failed data isolation. - Phenomenon: Unauthorized personnel modify the contents of the field mapping table. Cause: The access scope of field mapping permissions is not restricted, and the permission configuration does not match the maintenance personnel scope specified in the document.
How to Verify Correct Configuration
- Verify that integration data corresponding to different
teamIdvalues is only visible in the bound project. - Check that invited members receive team invitation notifications and only have operation permissions for the corresponding project.
- Verify the access permissions of the field mapping table, confirming that only field maintenance personnel can perform edit operations.
- Test whether a call to the interface by an unauthorized subject returns a permission verification failure prompt.
The values provided 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.