What the documents look like
This page addresses one narrow combination: the HTTP integration and external system step inside order fulfilment and after-sales question handling for foreign-exchange receipt, settlement and trade directory work. The category differs from letter-of-credit document examination. Receipt and settlement work concentrates on foreign-exchange funds and the authenticity of the trade background, and it does not examine a full set of letter-of-credit documents.
The working materials are receipts for foreign-exchange collection, trade contracts, invoices and foreign-exchange business registration records. Data sources named for this category are State Administration of Foreign Exchange policy, bank online banking, enterprise financial ledgers and customs export data. Update frequency is per transaction and monthly. For an HTTP integration step, these materials cross a boundary: the interface transports and parses fields, while authenticity verification of the trade background, directory classification decisions and confirmation that funds have been credited belong to downstream business implementation. An interface call does not itself constitute authorization, and a retrieval result or a submitted form is not an approval.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
The HTTP module sends a request to the corresponding address, and day-to-day operation is close to tools such as Postman and ApiFox. Params are path request parameters, used mostly with GET requests. Body is the request body, used mostly with POST and PUT requests. Headers carry special information. All three data categories can reference variables through {{}}, and the URL can also reference variables. Variables come from global variables, system variables and upstream node outputs.
The return-value configuration does not represent the interface's own return value. It represents how to parse the interface response, extracting values through JSON path syntax. After FastGPT v4.6.8, an output formatting capability was added, mainly converting json into a string. When the output type is set to string, the value of the corresponding HTTP key is converted into a json string for output.
The chat interface uses APIKey authentication. When calling chat/completions, passing body.appId in the request body is recommended. For compatibility with the OpenAI SDK, Authorization: Bearer <apiKey>-<appId> is also supported, and in that case body.appId need not be passed. The appId priority order is body.appId, then <apiKey>-<appId>, then the appId associated with the apikey under the older adaptation. Some SDKs need a v1 path in BaseUrl and some do not; if a 404 appears, adding v1 and retrying is the documented suggestion. Passed fields such as model and temperature have no effect, because these are determined by the orchestration. When an interaction node is returned, the interactive object given to the external caller is a display configuration containing only type and params; internal runtime fields such as entryNodeIds, memoryEdges, nodeOutputs and nodeResponseId are not returned. Forms collect values, while business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Configuration and implementation checks
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a foreign-trade enterprise finance staff member submits a request to check a foreign-exchange collection receipt. The material text reads: "The receipt for foreign-exchange collection shows the payer as ABC TRADING, the amount as USD 50,000, the payee as an export enterprise, and the declaration number ending 4821; the trade contract number is HT-2024-031, the contract amount is USD 50,000, and the signing date is 10 March 2024." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "The trade background authenticity of this collection has been verified, and settlement can be processed." This sample is used for paper-based checking only and does not indicate that any actual business action has been completed.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for selection and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Request address and method | Filled per the external interface document, with the address referencing variables | Compared word by word against the external interface contract; the method is manual review of the document |
| Params and Headers | Authentication credentials injected through secure configuration | Compared against interface document requirements; not written into public samples |
| Body structure | JSON organised per the external interface contract | Key names and value types checked field by field against the document example |
| Variable references | References to upstream node outputs or global variables | Actual passed values checked item by item against node outputs |
| Return-value extraction | Keys configured per JSON path | Compared against the interface response structure; the path of each field to extract is checked |
| Debug identity fields | chatId and responseChatItemId do not exist in test mode | Run mode is checked; debug empty values are not treated as business faults |
Three common errors
- Treating the interface return-value configuration as the interface's own return value. Input: a configured key path and the raw interface response. Comparison: the configured key path against the corresponding field in the response. Observable result: whether the extracted value matches that field. A return-value configuration is an extraction rule, not the response itself.
- Treating a missing chatId or responseChatItemId in test mode as a business fault. Input: a request issued in test mode. Comparison: the documented statement that these fields do not exist in test mode. Observable result: whether the request runs as the document describes. The absence is documented behaviour, and no failure cause should be asserted beyond what is observed.
- Treating a form submission or interface call as authorization to execute. Input: the draft sentence above. Comparison: the subject, object, status and effective scope stated in the material text. Observable result: whether the draft sentence stays within what the source supports. In this sample, the source shows only that the receipt and contract amounts agree; it does not state a conclusion that trade background authenticity has been verified, so the draft sentence exceeds the source.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample text and the draft sentence above. Compare the draft sentence against the subject, amount and declaration number in the source. The observable result is that the draft sentence contains a verification conclusion the source does not state, so it is judged unsupported.
- Input a call whose request body contains
body.appId. Compare the result against the documented appId priority rule. The observable result is that the interface takes the value frombody.appId, consistent with the document. If the value instead came from<apiKey>-<appId>or from the apikey-associated appId, that would be a point to record and examine, not a conclusion to assume in advance. - Input a request issued in test mode. Compare whether chatId and responseChatItemId exist. The observable result is that neither field exists in test mode, consistent with the document, and this is not judged a business fault. All three checks are paper-based; no call has actually been made, and actual results require observation within a target scope to which access is held.