What data for this category looks like
This page is written based on FastGPT v4.17.0. Data for this category mainly comes from source code repositories, dependency lists, static application security testing (SAST) tools, and public vulnerability databases. Data is updated with each project version iteration or after a single audit task is completed. Daily produced documents include code audit reports, vulnerability proof materials, repair recommendation documents, and retest records. Data fields include vulnerability location paths, dangerous function reference markers, repair plan details, retest result identifiers, and more. Data is stored split by the version dimension of individual audit projects.
What constraints these characteristics impose on the "HTTP Interfaces and External Systems" link
Data for this category is stored split by project version, and update frequency changes with project iterations. Therefore, HTTP interface calls must bind project and version identifiers to avoid cross-project data confusion. Daily produced documents include structured vulnerability location information and unstructured repair suggestions. Interfaces must support both structured field queries and full-text search capabilities. Data sources include local SAST tool results and external vulnerability library content. Interfaces must support aggregated requests for cross-source data, and must validate request legitimacy to protect sensitive audit data. The incremental update requirement also requires interfaces to support pulling new data by timestamp or version number, reducing invalid transmission overhead.
How to configure
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Authorization | Bearer {dedicated audit API key} | Verifies the identity of external systems calling the interface, meets the sensitive data access permission requirements for code security auditing scenarios |
| variables | {"project_id": "target project ID", "audit_version": "current version number"} | Binds audit project and version parameters, matching the storage characteristic of data split by version |
| Single request timeout | 30–60 seconds | Code audit data contains large amounts of text and path information, reserves sufficient processing and transmission time, and sets a reasonable range based on actual measurements |
responseData | Return only vulnerability location, repair suggestion, and retest result fields | Filters non-essential audit data, reduces HTTP interface transmission load, and improves external system call efficiency |
| Retry count | 2 times | Addresses scenarios of temporary network fluctuations or SAST tool return delays, avoiding interrupting the audit process due to a single request failure |
Three common mistakes
- Symptom: The plugin-passed value received by the HTTP request component is empty, returning a
Request failederror. Cause: The value parameter to be passed is not explicitly declared in the variables configuration, causing the parameter to not be correctly bound to the request body. - Symptom: When calling the knowledge base interface to create a file collection, the
metadataparameter is passed without corresponding instructions, making it impossible to confirm the parameter's function. Cause: The interface documentation exclusive to code security auditing was not consulted, and general knowledge base parameters were incorrectly applied to the interface for the auditing scenario, failing to distinguish category-specific parameter rules. - Symptom: When attempting to download audit report attachments via the interface, the download address can only be obtained through the page's "View Original Content" option. Cause: The file download permission mapping for the interface was not configured, and the storage path of audit documents was not mapped to a publicly accessible interface address.
How to confirm configuration is effective
- A test request carrying
Authorizationis sent. The identity verification status returned by the interface is checked, and the permission configuration is confirmed to be effective. - Variables parameters bound to the project and version are passed. The returned results are verified to only include data for the specified audit project, and the parameter binding is confirmed to be correct.
- A request containing the
responseDatafiltering rule is sent. The returned fields are checked to see if they meet the preset filtering requirements, and the data pruning configuration is confirmed to be effective. - A temporary network interruption is simulated, then the request is retried. The interface is confirmed to automatically retry according to the configured retry count, and the retry mechanism is confirmed to be operating normally.
The values listed above are common starting points, and should be evaluated against local 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.