What Data for This Category Entails
Data originates from requirement specification documents, test environment runtime logs, customer-provided business sample data, and defect management systems. Update frequency aligns with each test phase or version iteration. Daily documents include UAT use cases, acceptance issue tickets, acceptance reports, and signed confirmation forms. Data structure includes fields such as test scenario number, user interaction content, fault status, and processing duration. All fields use standard business text and numeric types, with no custom units. All data is generated around the full lifecycle of acceptance testing.
Constraints for Conversation Logs and Auditing Workflows
Data sources include customer business sample data, so strict isolation of different customers’ conversation logs is required to prevent cross-user data mixing. Update frequency follows phase or version levels; logs must be archived by test phase to enable retrospective review of acceptance processes for corresponding versions. Document structure includes UAT use cases and acceptance issue tickets, so audits must link log entries to corresponding test scenarios to ensure fault troubleshooting aligns with use cases. Fields include user interaction identifiers, so chatId must be used to distinguish conversation records of different participants to avoid cross-interference of interaction content. Fault logs from defect systems must be bound to conversation logs to enable association of fault submissions with full-process interactions during retrospectives.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Approach | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
chatId | Bind to UAT use case numbers, generate a unique chatId for a single test scenario | Facilitate association of conversation logs with corresponding test use cases, meeting the linking requirements between data sources and document structures |
detail | Store complete conversation context, including user questions, assistant responses, and fault reproduction descriptions | Cover core information in acceptance issue tickets, meeting detail requirements for fault troubleshooting and auditing |
responseChatItemId | Bind one-to-one with fault work order IDs in the defect system | Enable association between conversation logs and defect submissions, facilitating retrospective tracing of the full fault handling process |
| Context retention count | First 12–18 entries | Adapt to the conversation turn characteristics of UAT testing, retain sufficient interaction details while avoiding redundant data |
| Log archiving cycle | Archive 7 days after the end of an acceptance phase | Align with the update rhythm of data per phase or version, enabling phase-based auditing and retrospective reviews |
| Log storage quota | 500–1500 MB, calibrated via actual testing | Adapt to the conversation data volume range for single-phase acceptance, reserve space for parallel testing scenarios across multiple customers |
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Phenomenon: When connecting a business system via the FastGPT API, chat records for different business users cannot be distinguished, and interaction content mixing appears in logs. Cause: No binding of identifiers for corresponding customers or business users via
chatId, resulting in ineffective isolation of different users’ conversation logs. - Phenomenon: An error is triggered when clicking the log extraction configuration button, and the backend prompts a regular expression matching failure. Cause: No regular rules configured for the standardized format of UAT use cases, resulting in non-conversation document content being included in the extraction scope by mistake.
- Phenomenon: After deploying FastGPT v4.17.0, an attempt to create a knowledge base via URL prompts cannot fetch internal url. Cause: Internal interfaces of the test environment are not added to the allowed access whitelist, resulting in failure to normally pull internal resources associated with conversation logs.
How to Verify Proper Configuration
- Randomly select one acceptance conversation record, check whether
chatIdmatches the bound UAT use case number. - View the
detailfield to confirm whether complete conversation context and fault reproduction description are included. - Associate a defect system work order ID, check whether
responseChatItemIdmatches the work order ID one-to-one. - Check the log archiving rules to confirm whether the archiving action is triggered based on the completion time of the acceptance phase.
The values provided are common starting points, and should be evaluated against the applicable operational 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.