What the documents look like
For after-sales questions in Brand repair services, this page examines FastGPT HTTP integrations. An inspection heading is not its findings. Reported symptoms, approval and execution require separate records corresponding to this work order before a response can describe the handling state. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
A repair-service inquiry can distinguish reports, inspection, approval and actual handling. Proposed input contains a work order and warranty passage without inspection details or exchange approval. The real HTTP contract must define how item, work order and required records are located, without assumed complete after-sales coverage. Repair within warranty is not inherently a broken promise, and reported symptoms are not verified defects.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Service-reading check | Proposed material | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Item and work order | Another item’s inspection returned | Inspect correspondence and remove it |
| Inspection content | Heading without the actual passage | No verified-defect claim |
| Approval state | Application separate from this approval | Submission does not establish passing |
| Actual reading | Method, conditions and real request | Return covers this instance’s material |
| Actual handling | Separate repair, exchange or closure | Query is not a business decision |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Request address and method | The request address and method follow the external contract. |
Params and Headers | Inspect parameters, headers and authentication separately. |
| Body | Where a JSON body is used, validate its structure against the external contract. |
Variable references | Variables can come from global, system or upstream outputs. |
Debug identity fields | Test mode lacks chatId and responseChatItemId. |
Three common errors
Wrong item inspection returned: Another item’s inspection returned for this work order requires correspondence checks. Inspection heading mistaken for verified defect: An inspection heading described as a verified defect needs the actual relevant passage. Exchange application mistaken for approval: An exchange application reported as approved needs source-status and approval-evidence checks. These concern subject, content and business stage; successful HTTP establishes neither complete findings nor repair-event time from a record’s update date.
How to verify the setup
Retain work-order identity, source status, actual request and response. Repeat after corresponding inspection or handling records arrive and inspect use of the addition. Check headers separately from business parameters and use a body where appropriate under the contract without public credentials. Repair, exchange, refund or closure need separate authority and real receipts. Reading establishes neither responsibility, completed remedies, a platform decision nor a legal determination.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Warranty Card, Repair Work Order, Inspection Report and Exchange Approval |
| Candidate sources | After-Sales System, Store Orders, Repair Service Point Feedback and National Three Guarantees Catalog |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |