What the documents look like
Third-party overseas warehouses can serve several sales channels at once, and the seller assigns stock across those channels. Replenishment planning, inbound appointment requests, inventory age tables and final-mile delivery notes therefore sit across the overseas warehouse WMS, ERP sales forecasts, freight forwarder systems and carrier billing. Operating reports and exception reviews pull these sources together on a weekly or daily basis, and the HTTP integration is the channel that reads from or writes to an external system.
The brief records weekly and daily update frequencies. That cadence describes how the source material changes. It does not establish batch synchronization, full synchronization, real-time triggering or transaction-triggered calls, so this page treats the call as something initiated for an actual report or review need.
For this category, the documents that matter at the integration step are the replenishment plan, the inbound appointment record, the inventory age table and the final-mile delivery note. Each carries a business state that the report must reflect accurately.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
The HTTP module sends a request to a target address, and its operation is close to tools such as Postman and ApiFox. Params are path request parameters and are common in GET requests. Body is the request body and is common in POST and PUT requests. Headers carry special information. All three data groups can reference variables through {{}}, and the URL can also reference variables. Variables come from global variables, system variables and the outputs of preceding nodes. 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. Return-value configuration describes how to parse the interface response, and values are extracted with JSON path. When the output type is set to string, the value at the corresponding 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 body.appId is then not required. The appId priority order is body.appId, then <apiKey>-<appId>, then the appId associated with the apikey. Passed fields such as model and temperature have no effect because the orchestration decides them. Using authProxy to act on behalf of a team member requires the team owner to enable it when creating or editing the key, and the proxy identity still needs permission on the target application and conversation. When chatId is non-empty, the conversation is taken automatically from the database and only the last item in the messages array is used as the user question.
Hypothetical paper exercise: an overseas replenishment operator leaves a paper record whose text reads, "Replenishment plan table, week 12 of 2025, covering the Germany warehouse, planned replenishment 400 units; inbound appointment number status is submitted, the overseas warehouse has not yet replied with a confirmation time." The draft sentence to be assessed reads, "The week 12 replenishment for the Germany warehouse has obtained a confirmed inbound time from the overseas warehouse." The request is in a submitted state with no reply received. The draft sentence treats submission as confirmation, so it is assessed as unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists official documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this page's documents and primary task, tied to the paper exercise above.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Request address and method | Selected from the external interface documentation; the address can reference variables | Compare the address and method against the interface documentation |
| Params and Headers | Filled from the interface contract; authentication credentials injected through secure configuration | Check the actual passed values item by item; do not write them into public samples |
| Body | Used only under the corresponding request type | Check the JSON structure against the external interface contract |
| Variable references | Reference global variables, system variables or preceding node outputs | Check the actual passed values item by item |
| Return-value parsing | Configure key and output type by JSON path | Compare the extraction path against the response example |
| Debug identity fields | chatId and responseChatItemId do not exist in test mode | Do not treat a debug empty value as a business fault |
The starting points above are chosen for this paper exercise only. They are not official defaults, and no numeric limit, unit or menu is asserted beyond what the documents state.
Three common errors
- Treating the appointment status "submitted" as confirmed. The sample text states only that the status is submitted and that no confirmation time has been received. The draft sentence writes that a confirmed inbound time has been obtained, so the input and the conclusion lack confirmation evidence. Check: input the sample text and the draft sentence, compare the appointment status field, and when the draft sentence contains "confirmed" while the source has no confirmation record, assess it as unsupported.
- Treating a similarity score returned by the interface as a permission or entity filter. A similarity value is a relevance number for a retrieval result and does not perform the function of excluding unauthorized records or unrelated businesses. Check: input a response containing a similarity field, compare that field with the authorization field, and when the draft sentence asserts the record is authorized on the basis of similarity, assess it as unsupported.
- Treating chatId and responseChatItemId, which do not exist in test mode, as a business fault. Check: input a test-mode request record, compare whether those fields exist, and when the draft sentence declares a conversation or response anomaly on that basis, assess it as unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample text above and the draft sentence. Compare the appointment status field. When the draft sentence contains "confirmed" and the source has no confirmation record, the expected assessment is unsupported. The support condition is met only when the source contains a confirmation time field that states a confirmation.
- Input a hypothetical response carrying both a similarity field and an authorization field. Compare the two fields. When the draft sentence asserts authorization on the basis of similarity, the expected assessment is unsupported. The support condition is met only when the authorization field itself states the authorization.
- Input a test-mode request record. Compare whether chatId and responseChatItemId exist. When the draft sentence declares a business fault on that basis, the expected assessment is unsupported. The condition for continuing the check is met only when the field is missing outside test mode.
These are paper checks. No actual call was executed, and no deployment, approval or synchronization result was produced.