What this category of data looks like
This category of data primarily originates from source code repositories, dependency lists, static application security testing (SAST) tools, and public vulnerability databases. Update frequency adjusts based on project version iterations or the timeline of individual audit tasks. Daily generated documents include code audit reports, vulnerability proof documents, repair suggestion lists, and retest records. Common fields include unique vulnerability identifiers, dangerous function location information, data flow trace links, repair status, and risk level. There is no fixed unified unit, and values vary based on the specific content of each audit item.
Constraints imposed by these characteristics on forms and interactions
Multiple data sources require external business systems or downstream nodes to support batch import of audit materials in various formats. It also requires configuring data deduplication and format verification rules to prevent duplicate entry of vulnerability information. The update frequency tied to project iterations requires external business systems or downstream nodes to support incremental synchronization of uploaded audit data, eliminating the need to resubmit full files. The diverse document structure requires external business systems or downstream nodes to split entry modules by audit phase, matching the field requirements of different documents such as code audit reports and vulnerability proofs. The long duration of core time-consuming phases requires external business systems or downstream nodes to support temporary saving of entry progress, preventing duplicate work caused by operation interruptions. The severe consequences of high-risk vulnerabilities being deployed require external business systems or downstream nodes to configure mandatory verification for key fields, ensuring complete core audit information.
Configuration Settings
All configurations below must be implemented by external business systems or downstream nodes, using FastGPT v4.17.0's formInput and userSelect nodes.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Practice | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Form input node formInput | Test example: Select 3 fields from code security audit as mandatory inputs; actual fields are determined per task | This node collects user input. Check interaction status when mandatory fields are missing, to prevent downstream nodes from receiving incomplete input |
User selection node userSelect | Test example: Set 2 business options, check corresponding branches one by one | This node handles user selection. Queries and filtering of code security audit-related records are implemented by subsequent interfaces or external systems |
| Field passing after submission | Test example: Prepare 10 code security audit input samples, covering complete filling, missing mandatory fields, and canceled operations | Compare input and node output to verify if downstream nodes receive corresponding fields. Result thresholds are determined per actual task |
| External implementation item: Form segmented entry | Must be implemented separately by external systems; external business systems or downstream nodes split entry by audit phase: dangerous function location, data flow tracing, repair suggestions | Match core time-consuming phases of code security audit, reducing single-entry complexity |
| External implementation item: Batch data import | Must be implemented separately by external systems; external business systems or downstream nodes support importing vulnerability lists in CSV and JSON formats, with a recommended single batch limit of 500 entries (to be tested) | Adapt to batch entry requirements for multi-source audit data, reducing manual operations |
| External implementation item: Field mandatory verification | Must be implemented separately by external systems; external business systems or downstream nodes configure vulnerability ID and risk level as mandatory fields | Ensure complete core audit information, avoiding omission of key content |
Three common mistakes
- Batch import of vulnerability lists causes continuous page refresh, making import progress unviewable. The cause is that external business systems or downstream nodes do not have progress feedback logic configured, preventing the frontend from synchronizing import status.
- Omitting the risk level field when entering repair suggestions, with no verification prompt triggered after submission. The cause is that external business systems or downstream nodes do not have mandatory verification logic configured for the corresponding field, leading to invalid data submission.
- Duplicate import of existing vulnerabilities during incremental synchronization of audit data. The cause is that external business systems or downstream nodes do not have multi-source data deduplication rules configured, only checking duplicates based on a single field.
How to confirm correct configuration
- Upload batch vulnerability list files through external business systems or downstream nodes, verify that fields are automatically parsed and an import progress bar is displayed.
- Skip mandatory fields configured by external business systems or downstream nodes when submitting a form, confirm that a verification prompt for the corresponding field pops up.
- Interrupt the entry operation, then re-enter the form of the external business system or downstream node, confirm that the previously saved entry content is restored.
- Import existing vulnerability data, confirm that external business systems or downstream nodes automatically filter duplicate items and display prompt information.
The values given 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.