What This Category of Data Looks Like
The core data for Pull Request reviews comes from code repositories, CI pipelines, Issue links, and contributor submission records. Daily associated documents include PR description documents, code review comments, CI execution results, and merge status records. The data update frequency is typically daily or weekly, synchronized with code changes and review progress. Data fields include PR number, list of changed files, review status, CI pass rate, associated Issue number, merge time, and more. There are no unified fixed unit requirements; formats match the specific review content.
What Constraints These Characteristics Impose on Sharing and Embedding
Since PR review data is linked to unmerged code changes and sensitive review information, the sharing and embedding workflow must strictly control access permissions to avoid leaking undisclosed code content. Data update frequency test examples are daily or weekly. The cache and validity period of shared links must adapt to common code review cycles to prevent information lag caused by expiration. The document structure of PR reviews includes code snippets and CI logs. The embedded interface must adapt to the typesetting format of technical documents to ensure complete content display. Additionally, data sources are scattered across code repositories and CI pipelines. FastGPT commercial edition identity verification must be used to connect to external project permission systems, ensuring access permissions match project permissions and preventing unauthorized access.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Suggested Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Sharing Entry shareId | Copy the complete shared link generated by the system, do not replace the identifier yourself | Identifies the sharing entry; Pull Request review business records and data permissions still need to be handled by external systems |
| Shared Link Validity Period | Test starting point: 7 days; adjust based on Pull Request review collaboration cycles and revocation requirements through actual testing | Verify availability within the validity period and access behavior after expiration. This value is not an official default or industry statistic |
| QPM | Test starting point: 20 requests per user per minute; adjust based on actual load | Limits the access frequency of a single user. Requires verification combined with request logs and actual load |
| Identity Verification | When identity permission requirements exist, first verify the commercial edition capabilities and the uid returned by the third-party identity service | Holding a shared link does not equate to having business data permissions; third-party identity and data scope must be verified separately |
| Referenced Content Display | Select display configurations for referenced snippets, full text, and original text based on the sensitivity of Pull Request review materials | Check displayed content within authorized data ranges; hidden interfaces cannot replace data permission controls |
| Conversation Record Verification | Test example: Prepare 10 Pull Request review Q&A samples, check them in the same browser and another device respectively | Anonymous records rely on browser local identity. Retention cannot be guaranteed across devices or after clearing cache |
Three Common Mistakes
- Pull Request review-related sharing entries fail to open. First verify the complete link generated by the system and its validity period, then check browser request status. Do not replace
shareIdon your own. - The visible scope of Pull Request review data does not match expectations. Verify third-party identity verification results, workflow request parameters, and external system data permissions separately. The sharing entry identifier itself does not provide business authorization.
- The same Pull Request review Q&A is not visible on another device. For anonymous scenarios, first check the device, browser, and local identity status. Retention cannot be guaranteed across devices or after clearing cache. Do not use this phenomenon alone to determine service abnormalities.
How to Confirm Proper Configuration
- Copy the shared link or embedded code generated by the FastGPT non-login window, deploy it to a test page, and check that the interface language is Simplified Chinese after opening.
- Attempt to access the embedded page using an account that has not passed FastGPT commercial edition identity verification, verifying that external PR review-related documents and data cannot be viewed.
- Adjust the height parameter of the embedded container, confirm that all external PR descriptions, review comments, and CI results can be fully displayed without content overflow or scrolling abnormalities.
- Verify that the shared link can be accessed normally within the configured validity period, and cannot be accessed after expiration, or adjust the validity period parameter based on the actual review cycle.
Note: The configuration values provided here are common starting points. They should be evaluated against samples and actual use cases specific to the deployment context.
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.