This document is compatible with FastGPT v4.17.0.
What this category of data looks like
Data for this category primarily comes from Git repositories, CI pipelines, static scanning reports, and defect databases. Daily produced documents include merge requests, code review comments, commit records, and branch policy descriptions. Data updates occur daily or upon each code commit. Typical fields include source and target branch names, commit hashes, reviewer lists, changed file lists, review comment entries, and associated defect IDs. There are no unified fixed units; units adapt to individual field properties.
What constraints these characteristics impose on forms and interactions
Git repository branch data is updated in real time. Branch selection options must pull the latest branch list via external systems or subsequent workflow interfaces to avoid selecting deleted or non-existent branches. Commit records and review comments associated with merge requests iterate alongside the review process. The logic for dynamically appending review comment fields and associating them with commit hashes must be implemented by external business systems or subsequent workflows. Static scanning report results are automatically synced to the defect prompt area. Data pulling and rendering capabilities must be implemented by external business systems or subsequent workflows. Fields for branch policy descriptions must follow team specifications. Restrictions on the association logic of input content must be implemented by external business systems or subsequent workflows to avoid non-compliant configurations. For multi-reviewer scenarios, batch assignment of review tasks and real-time synchronization of review status logic must be implemented by external business systems or subsequent workflows.
How to configure settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Approach | 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, interaction status must be checked to prevent subsequent nodes from receiving incomplete input |
User selection node userSelect | Test example: Set 2 business options, verify corresponding branches one by one | This node handles user selection; queries and filtering of code review and merge management related records 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 submissions, 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: branch selection component | Must be implemented separately by external systems; call Git repository real-time branch pull interface via external systems or subsequent workflows | Data for this category comes from Git repositories, to avoid selecting deleted or invalid branches |
| External implementation item: reviewer assignment module | Must be implemented separately by external systems; use the userSelect component, with team member lists provided by external systems | Reviewer data comes from the team member database, adapting to interaction requirements for multi-person collaborative reviews |
| External implementation item: changed file display area | Must be implemented separately by external systems; use the formInput component, with file list rendering logic implemented by external systems or subsequent workflows, with a 10-20 line display limit calibrated via actual testing | Changed file data comes from Git commit records, requiring clear display and adaptation for scrolling viewing |
Three common mistakes
- Phenomenon: When invoking a published workflow via API, no interaction popup for the
formInputoruserSelectcomponent appears. Cause: External systems or subsequent workflows did not correctly return interaction instructions, causing FastGPT to fail to trigger the popup. - Phenomenon: Deleted invalid branches appear in the branch selection dropdown list. Cause: External systems or subsequent workflows did not correctly pull real-time Git repository branch data, using only static cached data leading to data desynchronization.
- Phenomenon: Review comments cannot be associated with the corresponding commit hash. Cause: External systems or subsequent workflows did not correctly configure the data binding logic between the commit hash field and the review comment input box, causing commit record data to fail to sync to the review form.
How to confirm correct configuration
- Trigger the Git repository branch pull action via external systems or subsequent workflows, check whether the branch selection dropdown list includes currently existing valid branches.
- Call the API interface to confirm that the returned content includes configuration information for the
formInputoruserSelectcomponent. - Submit a test review comment, check whether it can correctly associate with the corresponding commit hash.
- Configure the CI status refresh interval via external systems or subsequent workflows, wait for the CI pipeline to complete execution, and check whether the form automatically updates its status.
The values provided here 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.