What the documents look like
Multi-store matrix work depends on four document families: store authorization lists, price control tables, cross-territory complaint forms, and monthly sales reports. These materials come from platform merchant backends, ERP channel prices, brand anti-counterfeit systems, and distributor reports. They record authorization, price, and sales facts. They do not by themselves grant operating rights inside a system. The deployment and upgrade step must keep the same comparison basis for these materials in the new version while leaving operating permissions and handover status traceable at the document layer. The brief gives daily and monthly update frequencies; this page does not infer any synchronization mechanism from them.
The difference from single-store advertising is that a multi-store matrix centers on cross-store authorization and price order rather than single-store traffic efficiency. Typical roles are brand e-commerce leads, channel operations staff, and distributor e-commerce teams. Errors produce price-system confusion, distributor conflict, and consumers receiving non-genuine goods. The three most time-consuming steps are aligning multi-store prices, identifying unauthorized stores, and coordinating inventory allocation. These conditions shape what a handover must preserve across an upgrade.
Constraints at the upgrades step
An upgrade changes server-side configuration and runtime dependencies. It does not change who may adjust prices or who may hand over a store. During an operations handover, materials, actions, and requests sit in different authorization states. A form collects values. Retrieval returns candidates. Neither equals authorized execution. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation, and this page does not assume scheduled triggers or hidden controls.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A brand e-commerce lead submits the original text of a store authorization list containing three sentences: "Store A is authorized to distributor A for operation, authorization period 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026." "Store B is authorized to distributor B for operation, authorization period 1 March 2026 to 30 September 2026." "Store C authorization status field is empty." The same batch includes a draft sentence awaiting judgment: "Distributor A holds operating rights for Store B." A separate handover request states: "Transfer Store A operating rights to distributor C, effective 1 July 2026." That request has received no approval signature.
The upgrade guide for V4.17.2 lists two manually triggered upgrade scripts visible under Admin > Version Upgrade: the historical chunk training task migration 20261008_migrate_chunk_training, and the knowledge base rebuild status migration 20261009_migrate_dataset_rebuild_status. Both are described as not blocking service startup. The first should be run after confirming that all old-version FastGPT App and Pro instances in the cluster have fully stopped and old task leases have expired. The second depends on the first migration completing. The image update step names fastgpt-app and fastgpt-pro at tag v4.17.2.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table lists only settings or implementation checks that the official documents describe and that relate to this page's task. Where a value appears, it is a hypothetical starting point for this exercise, used for comparison against the target version description. It is not an official default.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point or check object | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AIPROXYAPIENDPOINT | Hypothetical starting point http://aiproxy:3000 | Documented as the AI Proxy root address without /v1; compare against the target version upgrade description |
| AIPROXYAPITOKEN | Hypothetical starting point: a random string matching the AI Proxy server | Documented as non-empty and consistent; compare against the AI Proxy side configuration |
| FILETOKENKEY | Hypothetical starting point: a random strong key of at least 6 characters | Documented as required at runtime; compare against the pre-upgrade backup record to confirm example values were replaced |
| INVOKETOKENSECRET | Hypothetical starting point: a random strong key of at least 32 characters | Documented as required at runtime; compare across the App and pro/admin sides |
| DEFAULTTEAMBASICPERMISSIONSENABLED | Hypothetical starting point false | Documented as not affecting existing teams; compare the same item between FastGPT and Pro Admin |
| Upgrade script execution boundary | Check 20261008_migrate_chunk_training and 20261009_migrate_dataset_rebuild_status | Both documented as manually triggered and not blocking startup; compare against the record confirming old instances fully stopped |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval or a form as authorization. Input: the three original authorization-list sentences above plus the draft sentence "Distributor A holds operating rights for Store B." If a retrieval hit on "distributor A" is used to conclude that distributor A has rights over Store B, that is an error. The list names distributor B as the authorized party for Store B, so the draft sentence subject does not match.
- Treating a pending request as an executed handover. Input: the request "Transfer Store A operating rights to distributor C," which carries no approval signature. Recording it as a completed handover is an error. It should be recorded as pending verification.
- Reading an empty field as a negative. Input: "Store C authorization status field is empty." The field is not stated, so the status is unsupported. It cannot be used to conclude that Store C has no authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Permission judgment check. Input: the three original list sentences and the draft sentence "Distributor A holds operating rights for Store B." Compare whether the draft subject "distributor A" is the same party as the Store B authorized party "distributor B" in the list. Observation: when the two differ, the draft sentence is unsupported. The support condition is met only when the list contains an explicit authorization record with the same subject, the same period, and the same field.
- Handover request status check. Input: the transfer request text, its approval record, and its signature record. Compare whether the request, the approval, and the signature are three independent facts. Observation: with only request text and no approval or signature, the status is pending verification. When approval and signature appear separately, record each item and do not merge them into a completed state.
- Empty field and post-upgrade recheck. Input: the empty Store C authorization status field and the same batch of materials after the upgrade. Compare the value of the same field before and after the upgrade. Observation: the empty field remains unsupported. If import, retrieval, or application invocation produces a different result on the same sample after the upgrade, record the difference and retain the original materials. Do not describe the outcome as zero interruption.
If the paper input is [], use it to check how the downstream design handles an empty result. Do not assert that a rule necessarily returns empty. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; verify the identifier first and exclude those that do not match.