What Data for This Category Looks Like
The data for this category primarily comes from path configurations exported by level editors, asset reference records from art resource libraries, player test feedback data, and submission records from project defect management systems. Daily produced documents include level design drafts, resource requirement sheets, test feedback forms, and version submission records. Most fields include level ID, resource path, test node, defect severity, and repair status. Data update frequency is typically weekly or per version iteration. Core fields are all linked to specific map blocks and task nodes. There are no standardized field formats that apply across all categories.
What Constraints These Characteristics Impose on Forms and Interactions
Since data sources are scattered and linked to specific map blocks, the forms and interactions workflow must support quick matching and association of multi-source fields to avoid repetitive manual entry work. Because data updates weekly or per version, forms must support bulk import and version number binding to ensure test data aligns with the corresponding level version. Daily documents have many subdivided fields, so interaction design must support quick retrieval of target fields to reduce input costs. At the same time, errors in level content directly affect playability and launch timelines. Forms must include clear defect classification and entry points for linked repair tasks to enable quick workflow handoff.
How to Configure Settings
This page is compatible with FastGPT v4.17.0 form and interaction configurations.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Approach | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Form Input Node formInput | Test example: Select 3 fields from level content creation as required inputs. Actual fields are determined by the task | This node collects user input. Missing required items requires checking 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. Queries and filtering of level content creation related records must be implemented by subsequent interfaces or external systems |
| Field Passing After Submission | Test example: Prepare 10 level content creation input samples covering complete filling, missing required items, and cancellation operations | Compare input and node output to verify whether subsequent nodes receive corresponding fields. Result thresholds are determined based on actual tasks |
| External Implementation Item: Single Search Limit | Must be implemented separately by external systems. Configured by external retrieval systems or subsequent nodes. The recommended value is the top 20 entries (test example) | Matches the conventional number of feedback entries from player test data, avoids excessive results interfering with analysis |
| External Implementation Item: Context Association Threshold | Must be implemented separately by external systems. Configured by external defect association analysis systems or subsequent nodes. The recommended measured range is 0.7–0.9 (test example) | Used to associate historical defects and test cases for the same level, adapting to the subdivided characteristics of level content |
| External Implementation Item: Bulk Submission Function | Must be implemented separately by external systems. Implemented by external business systems | Adapts to the workflow of bulk submitting test feedback per version, improving entry efficiency |
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Phenomenon: Form submission requires selecting preset options, and direct text entry is not allowed. Cause: The optional mode of
userSelectis not configured correctly. Selection items are set as mandatory submission, and the free input entry is not retained. - Phenomenon: When bulk importing test feedback forms, some resource path fields cannot automatically match the export format of the level editor. Cause: The mapping rules between form fields and external data sources are not configured, resulting in field incompatibility.
- Phenomenon: The number of associated results for defect analysis is abnormal, either too many or too few. Cause: The context association threshold is not adjusted according to the subdivided characteristics of level content, and the matching rules do not adapt to the scenario of level paths and asset placement.
How to Confirm Successful Configuration
- Test the optional/required toggle function of the form to confirm that the mandatory submission rule for
formInputcan be freely enabled or disabled. - When submitting test feedback, confirm that the custom input function of
userSelectworks normally, and content outside predefined configuration options can be added. - When bulk importing test feedback forms via an external business system, confirm that the version number association function correctly matches the current level's version information.
- When triggering external defect association analysis, confirm that the number of associated results can adjust matching rules based on actual scenarios.
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.