Data Profile
This category of data originates primarily from Git repositories, CI pipelines, static scanning reports, and defect databases. Daily generated documents include merge requests, code review comments, commit records, and branch strategy descriptions. Data updates occur daily or per commit. Core fields include merge request ID, reviewer list, changed file list, associated defect number, commit hash, and others. Typical users include development teams, Tech Leads, and open source project maintainers. This page is based on FastGPT v4.17.0.
Constraints Imposed on Forms and Interactions
The multi-source nature of this data requires integration with external business systems to cross-associate Git commits, CI results, and defect database content, eliminating duplicate data entry. The high-frequency update characteristic requires integration with external systems for real-time saving and branch status synchronization, preventing conflicting data loss. The high time cost of change impact assessment recommends using external business system interfaces to enable changed file previews and rapid impact scope marking. The dual process of manual review and automatic scanning recommends using external workflow branches to separate automatic check items from manual review items, avoiding confusion in judgment logic. The associated defect workflow recommends using external business systems to pull defect details with one click, reducing cross-page navigation costs.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Form input node formInput | Test example: Select 3 fields from code review and merge management as required inputs; actual fields are determined per task | This node collects user input. When required fields are missing, check interaction status to avoid subsequent nodes failing to receive complete input |
User selection node userSelect | Test example: Set 2 business options, check corresponding branches one by one | This node handles user selection. Querying and filtering records related to code review and merge management must be implemented by subsequent interfaces or external systems |
| Post-submission field passing | Test example: Prepare 10 code review and merge management input samples covering complete filling, missing required fields, and canceled operations | Compare input and node output to verify whether subsequent nodes receive corresponding fields. Result thresholds are determined per actual task |
| External implementation item: Review comment input length | Must be implemented separately by external systems; Test example: 800–1200 characters per entry | Used as a test reference range for review information length |
| External implementation item: Reviewer selection scope | Must be implemented separately by external systems; Test example: Only project maintainers and code committers are selectable | Used as a test reference range based on Git repository permission configuration |
| External implementation item: External defect association check | Must be implemented separately by external systems; Test example: At least 1 defect number must be associated | Used as a test reference for pre-merge check rules |
Common Misconfigurations
- Frequent refresh and redirection of selection boxes: Check whether the external system's user permission list pull logic is running normally.
- Empty field error after form submission: Check whether the external verification logic is configured with required review comment verification.
- Build failure triggered after merge request submission: Check whether the external process is configured with defect association check rules.
How to Verify Correct Configuration
- Enter a review comment. When the input length exceeds the test reference range, check whether the external verification logic provides a corresponding prompt.
- Try to select an account that is not a project maintainer as a reviewer, confirm that it is blocked by the external permission verification logic.
- Submit a merge request without associating a defect, confirm that it is blocked by the external defect association check logic.
- Leave the review page for longer than the test reference duration, check whether unsaved content is processed by the external system.
The values provided are common starting points and should be evaluated 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.