What the documents look like
Franchise fee and deposit settlement deals with money and penalty deductions. It does not handle government filing. The main data sources are the finance system, franchise contracts, bank transaction records, and store violation records. Everyday documents include franchise fee invoices, deposit ledgers, deduction notices, and contract payment schedules.
For inventory procurement and supplier records, these materials serve as settlement evidence. Received purchase quantities, supplier names, and payment schedules together determine the amount due and the reason for a deduction. Data updates monthly and on each deduction. This page covers only how these materials are used when the HTTP module connects to external systems: request construction, variable references, and return value extraction. It does not construct authorization, approval, or database write actions.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
The HTTP module sends a request to a specified address. Params carry path parameters, used mostly for GET requests. Body carries the request body, used mostly for POST and PUT requests. Headers carry request headers for special information. All three can reference variables through {{}}. 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 entries by default, and this length cannot be changed. In test mode, chatId and responseChatItemId do not exist. An empty value during debugging is not a business fault.
Return values are extracted through JSON path syntax or JS object access rules. When the output type is set to string, the value for the corresponding key is converted to a JSON string. Similarity scores and retrieval do not carry permission or entity isolation duties. An HTTP call by itself is not authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a supplier record reads "Supplier: Hualing Office Supplies Co., Ltd.; Object: Area A store October 2024 office consumables procurement; Status: contract payment schedule registered, deduction notice not yet issued; Valid range: 1 October 2024 to 31 October 2024." A draft sentence to be assessed reads "This supplier's October procurement payment has completed deduction and the deduction notice has been issued." The comparison checks the status field in the draft against the source text. The source text states only that the payment schedule is registered and the deduction notice is not yet issued. The draft's claim of completed deduction and issued notice is not supported by that field. It remains pending verification. It is not a negation or a conflict.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Assumed trial starting point | Verification method and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Request address | External settlement service address, path contains store number variable | Select address and method per the external interface document; the address can reference a provided variable |
| Params | Store number, settlement period | Check each actual passed value against the supplier record source text |
| Headers | Authorization injected as Bearer plus token variable | Inject credentials through secure configuration; do not write them into public samples |
| Body | JSON containing supplier name, object, status field | Use only under the corresponding request type; check structure against the external interface contract |
| Return value extraction | Take status field and amount field | Extract via JSON path; when output type is string, convert to a JSON string |
| Debug identity fields | chatId and responseChatItemId left empty | These two fields do not exist in test mode; empty values are not treated as business faults |
Three common errors
- Treating "completed deduction" in the draft sentence as a fact already stated in the source text. Input: the supplier record source text above and the draft sentence. Comparison: the status field in both. Observable result: the source text states only that the payment schedule is registered and the deduction notice is not yet issued, so the draft's claim is not supported.
- Omitting quotation marks when referencing a string variable in the Body. Input: a Body declaration containing a supplier name variable. Comparison: the final parsed result against the expected JSON. Observable result: the parsed type does not match the external interface contract.
- Treating a missing chatId in test mode as a business fault. Input: a test mode request. Comparison: the system variable description against the actual request value. Observable result: the field does not exist in test mode, so it does not need fault handling.
How to verify the setup
- Input the supplier record source text and the draft sentence above. Compare the status field values. The condition is met when the draft's claims about deduction and notice are not supported by the source text.
- Input a Body declaration containing a supplier name variable. Compare the parsed JSON field types against the external interface contract. The condition is met when the types match.
- Input a test mode request. Compare the actual values of chatId and responseChatItemId against the system variable description. The condition is met when both are absent, which is expected behavior.
These checks are paper exercises. They were not actually executed. They do not indicate that any deduction, invoice issuance, approval, or database write has occurred.