What Data Looks Like for This Category
Data for this category originates from defect management systems, test reports, code commit records, and user feedback. Update frequency follows daily or per version release cycles. Daily produced documents include defect tickets, regression test checklists, repair verification records, and defect statistical reports. Core fields cover defect ID, reproduction steps, priority, repair status, verification results, and more. Data flows through the full lifecycle of functional defects, focusing on defect discovery, judgment, repair, and verification stages.
Constraints Imposed on Forms and Interactions
Data sources are scattered, and update rhythms align with version iterations. This requires forms to support quick associated entry of multi-source data, reducing repetitive filling work. Core document fields are numerous and must match defect lifecycle stages. Interaction design must display fields in stages according to process flow, avoiding single-page information overload that reduces filling efficiency. Defect reproduction and priority judgment take significant time, so external business systems must provide reproduction step templates and priority option values. FastGPT formInput and userSelect nodes handle collecting entry content and displaying optional lists, lowering manual entry costs. The risk of missing high-priority defects requires strict required field verification, and external business systems must support quick filtering of associated data by version and priority. FastGPT only collects input information for associated fields, ensuring core information is not missing. Repair verification records need to be associated with code commits and test reports, so external business systems must provide quick jump entrances for associated data sources. FastGPT only collects input information for associated fields, improving verification efficiency.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Approach | Basis for This Approach |
|---|---|---|
Form input node formInput | Test example: Select 3 fields from defect management and regression test fields as required inputs; actual fields are determined based on tasks | This node collects user input; when required items are missing, check interaction status to avoid subsequent nodes failing to obtain complete input |
User selection node userSelect | Test example: Set 2 business options, check corresponding branches one by one | This node handles user selection; query and filtering of defect management and regression test related records must be implemented by subsequent interfaces or external systems |
| Field passing after submission | Test example: Prepare 10 defect management and regression test input samples, covering complete filling, missing required items, and cancel operation | Compare input and node output to verify whether subsequent nodes receive corresponding fields; result thresholds are determined based on actual tasks |
| External implementation item: Form staged display logic | Must be implemented separately by external systems; implemented by external business systems, FastGPT formInput node is responsible for collecting input fields of corresponding stages | Match process nodes of defect management and regression testing, adapting to form display rules of external systems |
| External implementation item: Associated data source mapping | Must be implemented separately by external systems; data association and pulling are implemented by external business systems or subsequent nodes | Follow multi-source data flow characteristics, reducing repetitive entry workload, and must match field rules of external business systems |
| External implementation item: Version filtering logic | Must be implemented separately by external systems; version filtering rules are implemented by external business systems or subsequent nodes | Match the update rhythm of each version, focusing on tasks of the current version, and must follow the filtering logic of external systems |
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Manually submit an associated configuration form without mapping the defect ID field, resulting in a parameter mismatch prompt during submission. Verification action: Check whether the form fields and external business system field mapping configuration are complete.
- After submitting a defect management and regression test related form, subsequent nodes do not receive complete fields. Compare required items, actual submission content, and node output mapping one by one, then check subsequent interface returns; existing symptoms cannot independently determine the root cause.
- When creating a defect ticket, priority and iteration version fields have no default values, requiring manual repeated selection. Verification action: Check whether the field default value mapping configuration of subsequent nodes is completed.
How to Confirm Configuration Is Complete
- Manually create a test defect ticket, check whether the form implemented by the external system displays fields split into four stages (discovery, judgment, repair, verification) according to the defect lifecycle; FastGPT
formInputnode is responsible for collecting input content of the corresponding stage. - Click the priority drop-down box, confirm that the high/medium/low options provided by the external business system and the pass/fail/pending verification options for verification status load normally and can be selected normally; FastGPT
userSelectnode is only responsible for displaying the optional list. - After configuring the external data source association, try to pull the associated test report data, confirm that the data can be displayed normally and associated with the current defect ticket; this logic is implemented by the external business system or subsequent nodes.
- Do not fill in the defect ID and priority fields when submitting the form, check whether a clear verification prompt is triggered, and confirm that the required field verification function is effective.
The values provided here 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.