What the documents look like
Fruit-store procurement reviews draw on purchase orders, acceptance sheets, pesticide-residue test reports and loss records. Wholesale-market price signals and supplier quotes change daily, grade acceptance runs per batch, and store sales together with loss records form the other side of the review. These materials update daily or per batch, so any interface that pulls data or hands it to an external system must state the time range and batch identifier explicitly.
Compared with convenience-store prepared-food ordering, fruit procurement depends on wholesale-market conditions and grade acceptance rather than a headquarters-standard meal specification. The grade, quantity and test conclusion for one batch may sit across a supplier quote, an acceptance sheet and a test report. When an interface aggregates these fields, it must align them by the material's own subject and batch; similarity of wording does not merge records from different batches.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
The HTTP module sends a request to the corresponding address. Params carries path request parameters and is used mostly with GET requests; Body carries the request body and is used mostly with POST/PUT requests; Headers carries special information. URL, Params, Headers and Body can all reference variables through {{}}, and variables come from global variables, system variables and upstream node outputs. Return values are extracted through JSON path syntax, and output formatting mainly converts json into a string.
Among the system variables, chatId and responseChatItemId do not exist in test mode. When debugging, these two fields are empty, which is the documented state of test mode and does not by itself indicate a business fault. When calling the chat interface, passing body.appId in the request body is recommended. When chatId is a non-empty string, FastGPT retrieves the session from its database and uses the last item of the messages array as the user question. Setting detail=true returns intermediate values, and in non-stream mode the result is stored in responseData.
Hypothetical drill sample: a store's fresh-produce supervisor organizes review materials for one batch of apples on 10 March 2025. The supplier quote states "Red Fuji, 80# and above, valid 10 March, quoted at 5.2 yuan per jin." The acceptance sheet states "arrived 10 March, 200 jin, accepted grade one, acceptance staff signature present." The pesticide-residue test report states "sampled 9 March, tested items pass." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This batch of apples was purchased on 10 March below the day's market average price, and the loss was caused by a grade mismatch." This draft sentence involves a price comparison and a loss attribution. The materials do not state a market average price value and do not state a cause of loss, so the sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point for this page | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Request address | Fill in per the external interface document; the address can reference variables | Compare the address and method against the external interface document |
| Params | Fill in path parameters per the external interface document | Check each item against the external interface contract |
| Headers | Authorization injected through secure configuration | Confirm credentials are not written into public samples |
| Body | Fill in the JSON structure per the external interface contract | Check only under the corresponding request type |
| Variable references | Reference global variables, system variables and upstream node outputs | Check each actually passed value |
| Return-value extraction | Configure keys per JSON path syntax | Compare extraction results against the interface response example |
The hypothetical trial starting point only illustrates the checking method and is not a default value. The reason for choosing it is to align with the dates and batch in the sample materials, and the comparison target is the sample material text.
Three common errors
- Treating the absence of chatId and responseChatItemId in test mode as a business fault. The input is a test-mode request, the comparison target is the documented test-mode state, and the observable result is that these two fields are empty as a defined state. The correct handling is to record that state and not infer a business anomaly from it.
- Accepting the draft sentence "This batch of apples was purchased on 10 March below the day's market average price, and the loss was caused by a grade mismatch" at face value. The input is the sample material text, the comparison target is the price comparison and loss attribution in the draft sentence, and the observable result is that the materials state no market average price and no cause of loss. The correct handling is to mark it unsupported.
- Treating retrieval or form submission as authorized execution. The input is a handover request, the comparison target is the authorization boundary, and the observable result is that retrieval and form value collection do not constitute approval or a database write. The correct handling is to distinguish behavior already present in a node, configurable fields, manual checking actions, and business actions that require a separate system implementation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the draft sentence; compare whether the price comparison in the draft sentence shares the same subject, the same period and the same field as the quote field stated in the materials; observe that when the materials state no market average price, the comparison is unsupported.
- Input a test-mode request; compare the actual values of chatId and responseChatItemId against the documented test-mode state; observe that these two fields being empty is a defined state and does not constitute a business fault.
- Input a handover request; compare the operation declared in the request against the authorization state; observe that pending review does not constitute approval, that form value collection does not constitute a database write, and that missing authorization evidence remains missing.