What the documents look like
In B2B marketplace matching, the documents that carry order fulfillment and after-sales question handling are enterprise verification materials, inquiry and quotation sheets, electronic contracts, and platform settlement statements. Compared with wholesale market stall trading, online verification and electronic contracts appear more often, and transactions do not depend on a physical stall. Order status, fulfillment milestones, and after-sales requests therefore travel between the platform and external systems through HTTP interfaces. Data sources named in the brief are the B2B platform, the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, payment records, and logistics traces. The brief gives update frequency as daily and per order. These documents appear at the interface step as request parameters, request bodies, request headers, and return values. The review point is whether the subject, object, status, and valid scope recorded in the material agree with the external interface contract.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
The HTTP module sends an HTTP request to the corresponding address. Params are path request parameters and are used more often in GET requests. Body is the request body and is used more often in POST and PUT requests. Headers are request headers and carry special information. All three data types can reference variables through {{}}, and the URL can also reference variables. Variables come from global variables, system variables, and upstream node outputs. System variables include appId, chatId, responseChatItemId, variables, cTime, and histories. The histories variable takes at most 10 records by default and its length cannot be modified. chatId and responseChatItemId do not exist in test mode.
Return values are extracted through JSON path syntax. When the output type is set to string, the value at the corresponding key is converted to a JSON string. The chat completions interface uses APIKey authentication. When calling chat/completions, passing body.appId in the request body is recommended. Authorization: Bearer <apiKey>-<appId> is also supported, in which case body.appId is not required. The appId priority order is body.appId, then <apiKey>-<appId>, then the appId associated with the apikey under the older adaptation. The model, temperature, and similar fields passed in have no effect; these are determined by the orchestration and do not change with API parameters. Setting detail=true returns intermediate values, and module status and complete results are stored in responseData. The interactive value returned to an external caller is a display configuration containing only type and params; internal runtime fields such as entryNodeIds, memoryEdges, nodeOutputs, and nodeResponseId are not returned. Form input requires serializing an object into a string as the messages value and keeping chatId consistent. Retrieval and similarity do not carry permission or entity isolation; retrieval is not authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a B2B platform operations staff member hands over after-sales question handling for one matched order. The source material reads: "Supplier A submitted enterprise verification materials on March 10, 2025. The platform settlement statement shows the order amount is RMB 120,000. The electronic contract status is pending signature." The draft sentence under review is: "The order has been signed and a refund can be executed." In this sample the subject is Supplier A, the object is this order, the status is pending signature, and the valid scope is not stated.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point for this page | Comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Request address and method | Selected according to the external interface document; the address references an already provided variable | Compare against the path and method recorded in the interface document |
| Params and Headers | Authentication credentials injected through secure configuration | Check request header fields against the external contract |
| Body | Used only under the corresponding request type; check the JSON structure | Compare field names and value types |
| Variable reference | References global variables, system variables, and upstream node outputs | Check actual passed values item by item |
| Debug identity fields | chatId and responseChatItemId do not exist in test mode | Confirm that empty values in test mode are expected |
| Return value extraction | Extracted by JSON path; output type set to string | Compare the extracted result against the original response |
Three common errors
- Treating the draft sentence "The order has been signed and a refund can be executed" as established fact. The source material records only that the electronic contract status is pending signature. Signing, reaching agreement, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. Pending signature does not constitute completed signing, and no authorization basis for a refund is present in the material.
- Treating retrieval or form collection as authorized execution. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each require their own downstream implementation. Retrieval results do not constitute permission or entity isolation.
- Judging empty chatId and responseChatItemId values in test mode as a business fault. The documentation states that these two do not exist in test mode, and this must be distinguished from real operation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source material and draft sentence from the hypothetical exercise sample above. Compare whether "has been signed" in the draft sentence and "pending signature" in the source refer to the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The source status is pending signature and the draft sentence says signing is complete. These are mutually exclusive values on the same field, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Input a handover request concerning this order. Compare the authorization status carried in the request against the status recorded in the material. The material states no refund authorization. If the request contains a refund execution, it exceeds the authorization boundary and is recorded as pending verification.
- Input one HTTP call in test mode. Compare the actual values of chatId and responseChatItemId against the documentation. Both do not exist in test mode, so empty values are expected and are not judged as an interface fault.
These checks use the same hypothetical material, draft sentence, and request given above. The expected outcomes are stated, and no test, deployment, approval, refund, or other business action is claimed to have occurred.