Skip to content

Conversation

@zhanluxianshen
Copy link
Contributor

Important

  1. Make sure you have read our contribution guidelines
  2. Ensure there is an associated issue and you have been assigned to it
  3. Use the correct syntax to link this PR: Fixes #<issue number>.

Summary

Fix #26354

Screenshots

Before After
... ...

Checklist

  • This change requires a documentation update, included: Dify Document
  • I understand that this PR may be closed in case there was no previous discussion or issues. (This doesn't apply to typos!)
  • I've added a test for each change that was introduced, and I tried as much as possible to make a single atomic change.
  • I've updated the documentation accordingly.
  • I ran dev/reformat(backend) and cd web && npx lint-staged(frontend) to appease the lint gods

@dosubot dosubot bot added the size:XS This PR changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Sep 28, 2025
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Contributor

Summary of Changes

Hello @zhanluxianshen, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves a bug in the workflow variable loading mechanism by enhancing the validation of variable keys. The change ensures that any variable key, when parsed, must consist of at least two parts (e.g., 'node.variable'), preventing malformed keys from being processed and improving the overall robustness of the workflow system.

Highlights

  • Workflow Variable Validation: Corrected the validation logic for workflow variable keys to ensure they adhere to the expected format, requiring at least two segments when split by a dot.
  • Bug Fix: Addressed issue [Chore/Refactor] fix workflow variable split judge. #26354 by refining the condition that checks the length of node_variable_list after splitting a variable key.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

@dosubot dosubot bot added the 🌊 feat:workflow Workflow related stuff. label Sep 28, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request correctly adjusts the logic for splitting workflow variable keys, enforcing that a key must contain at least two parts. However, this change introduces an inconsistency with the associated error message, which I've flagged in a review comment with a suggested fix. Additionally, a code comment indicates this logic should be synchronized with the WorkflowEntry.mapping_user_inputs_to_variable_pool function, but that function has not been updated in this PR. This could lead to divergent behavior and may need to be addressed for consistency.

Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@dosubot dosubot bot added the lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer label Sep 28, 2025
@crazywoola crazywoola merged commit 3658022 into langgenius:main Sep 28, 2025
11 checks passed
lyzno1 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 28, 2025
Signed-off-by: zhanluxianshen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
LawrenceZHLee pushed a commit to LawrenceZHLee/dify that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2025
Signed-off-by: zhanluxianshen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

🌊 feat:workflow Workflow related stuff. lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer size:XS This PR changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[Chore/Refactor] fix workflow variable split judge.

2 participants