在前后端开发联调前 的提交20260223
This commit is contained in:
196
docs/audit/prompt_logs/prompt_log_20260220_020242.md
Normal file
196
docs/audit/prompt_logs/prompt_log_20260220_020242.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,196 @@
|
||||
- [P20260220-020242] 2026-02-20 02:02:42 +0800
|
||||
- summary: CONTEXT TRANSFER: We are continuing a conversation that had gotten too long. Here is a summary: --- ## TASK 1: Execute d…
|
||||
- prompt:
|
||||
```text
|
||||
CONTEXT TRANSFER: We are continuing a conversation that had gotten too long. Here is a summary:
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
## TASK 1: Execute dataflow structure analysis (data collection + report generation)
|
||||
|
||||
**STATUS**: done
|
||||
|
||||
**USER QUERIES**: 1 ("执行数据流结构分析，按以下步骤完成")
|
||||
|
||||
**DETAILS**:
|
||||
- Phase 1 (Data Collection): Cleared historical results, ran `python scripts/ops/analyze_dataflow.py`. 23 ODS tables analyzed, 3,395 records collected, API date range 2025-11-22 ~ 2026-02-20.
|
||||
- Phase 2 (Report Generation): Ran `python scripts/ops/gen_dataflow_report.py`. Output: `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/dataflow_analysis/dataflow_2026-02-20_005219.md` (568.6 KB, 4,839 lines).
|
||||
|
||||
**FILEPATHS**:
|
||||
- `scripts/ops/analyze_dataflow.py`
|
||||
- `scripts/ops/gen_dataflow_report.py`
|
||||
- `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/dataflow_analysis/dataflow_2026-02-20_005219.md`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK 2: Compare dataflow report with field_review_for_user.md
|
||||
|
||||
**STATUS**: done
|
||||
|
||||
**USER QUERIES**: 2 ("将dataflow报告同field_review_for_user.md对比。告诉我在字段新增方案方面的异同")
|
||||
|
||||
**DETAILS**:
|
||||
- Comparison completed and output to `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/field_audit/dataflow_vs_field_review_comparison.md`
|
||||
- Core conclusion: Both reports agree on all substantive field addition plans. DF's extra flags (siteprofile, site_assistant_id, provisional_total_cost, commoditycode, discount_price) all have corresponding "skip" or "already handled" explanations in FR.
|
||||
|
||||
**FILEPATHS**:
|
||||
- `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/field_audit/dataflow_vs_field_review_comparison.md`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK 3: Verify order_assistant_id vs site_assistant_id
|
||||
|
||||
**STATUS**: done
|
||||
|
||||
**USER QUERIES**: 3 ("分析下 order_assistant_id 和 site_assistant_id 是不是相同的？")
|
||||
|
||||
**DETAILS**:
|
||||
- Database verification on `ods.assistant_service_records`: 10,219 rows, 0 rows where the two are equal, no value overlap
|
||||
- `order_assistant_id`: 5,292 distinct values (order-level ID, one per service)
|
||||
- `site_assistant_id`: 63 distinct values (assistant profile ID, maps to `assistant_accounts_master.id`)
|
||||
- Confirmed: completely different fields. DWD `site_assistant_id` is incorrectly mapped from ODS `order_assistant_id`.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## TASK 4: Full field audit — update field_review_for_user.md based on dataflow report + DB verification
|
||||
|
||||
**STATUS**: in-progress
|
||||
|
||||
**USER QUERIES**: 4 ("文档要更新。首先order_assistant_id和site_assistant_id完全不同...逐一分析字段存在的可能性..."), 5 ("主表现在assistant_no映射的ODS哪个字段？")
|
||||
|
||||
**DETAILS**:
|
||||
|
||||
### What was completed:
|
||||
- Three batches of sub-agent field audits executed, each querying the database for every unmapped field:
|
||||
- Batch 1 (1.1.1-1.1.9): `field_review_batch1_1.1.1-1.1.9.md`
|
||||
- Batch 2 (1.1.12-1.1.17): `field_review_batch2_1.1.12-1.1.17.md`
|
||||
- Batch 3 (1.1.18-1.1.21): `field_review_batch3_1.1.18-1.1.21.md`
|
||||
- `field_review_for_user.md` was fully rewritten (1,014 lines) incorporating all findings
|
||||
|
||||
### Key findings incorporated into the updated document:
|
||||
1. **🔴 Mapping error (HIGH priority)**: `assistant_service_records` — DWD `site_assistant_id` maps from ODS `order_assistant_id` (100% verified), should map from ODS `site_assistant_id`
|
||||
2. **site_tables_master**: Reduced from 14 fields to 1 required (`create_time`) + 2 optional; 11 single-value fields changed to skip
|
||||
3. **store_goods_master.provisional_total_cost**: Changed from skip to "needs mapping" (new column name `provisional_cost` to avoid conflict)
|
||||
4. **goods_stock_summary**: Changed from "new DWD table" to "defer" (range fields all zero)
|
||||
5. **recharge_settlements**: 5 fields confirmed B-class (DWD columns exist, just need FACT_MAPPINGS); ODS/DWD both all zeros
|
||||
6. **store_goods_sales_records.discount_price**: Confirmed DWD column maps from ODS `discount_money` (17563/17563 = 100%), not ODS `discount_price`
|
||||
7. **tenant_goods_master.commoditycode**: Confirmed 100% redundant with `commodity_code` (353/353 = `'{' + commodity_code + '}'`)
|
||||
8. Updated global summary: 28 fields to add, 1 mapping fix, 18 skips
|
||||
|
||||
### What is still in progress:
|
||||
- User's latest question (query 5): "主表现在assistant_no映射的ODS哪个字段？" — asking which ODS field maps to `dwd_assistant_trash_event.assistant_no`
|
||||
- A grep search was executed finding FACT_MAPPINGS references but the answer was not yet delivered to the user
|
||||
- Need to find the actual FACT_MAPPINGS configuration for `dwd_assistant_trash_event` to confirm which ODS field maps to `assistant_no`
|
||||
|
||||
**NEXT STEPS**:
|
||||
1. Find the FACT_MAPPINGS for `dwd_assistant_trash_event` — likely in `apps/etl/connectors/feiqiu/models/` or `apps/etl/connectors/feiqiu/loaders/` directory. The grep found `gen_field_review_doc.py` line 334 referencing this table, and `dwd_load_task.py` line 52 showing `dwd.dwd_assistant_trash_event: ods.assistant_cancellation_records`
|
||||
2. Answer the user: which ODS field currently maps to DWD `assistant_no` in `dwd_assistant_trash_event` (the batch1 report says it maps from `assistantname` i.e. the nickname, not `assistanton` the actual number)
|
||||
3. Verify this by querying the database: compare DWD `assistant_no` values against ODS `assistantname` and ODS `assistanton`
|
||||
4. If confirmed, this is another mapping naming issue to document (DWD column named `assistant_no` but contains nickname data)
|
||||
|
||||
**FILEPATHS**:
|
||||
- `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/field_audit/field_review_for_user.md` — the main updated document
|
||||
- `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/field_audit/field_review_batch1_1.1.1-1.1.9.md`
|
||||
- `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/field_audit/field_review_batch2_1.1.12-1.1.17.md`
|
||||
- `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/field_audit/field_review_batch3_1.1.18-1.1.21.md`
|
||||
- `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/dataflow_analysis/dataflow_2026-02-20_005219.md`
|
||||
- `apps/etl/connectors/feiqiu/tasks/dwd/dwd_load_task.py` — contains TABLE_MAP for DWD loading
|
||||
- `apps/etl/connectors/feiqiu/models/` — likely contains FACT_MAPPINGS definitions
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## USER CORRECTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS:
|
||||
- All output text must be in simplified Chinese (language-zh.md steering)
|
||||
- Output paths must come from `.env` environment variables, never hardcoded (export-paths.md steering)
|
||||
- Python scripts preferred over PowerShell for complex operations (tech.md steering)
|
||||
- `order_assistant_id` and `site_assistant_id` are completely different fields — cannot be roughly mapped
|
||||
- Skip: siteProfile nested content, downstream-only fields (ODS无JSON源, DWD无ODS源), 1.1.22 settlement_ticket_details
|
||||
- Special attention: 1.1.13 recharge_settlements mapping, 1.1.15/1.1.16/1.1.17 large unmapped field sets
|
||||
- The audit reminder hook fires but this is a read-only analysis task — no code changes, so no audit needed
|
||||
- Database queries should use `mcp_pg_etl_test_*` tools (test environment)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Files to read
|
||||
- `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/field_audit/field_review_for_user.md`
|
||||
- `export/SYSTEM/REPORTS/field_audit/field_review_batch1_1.1.1-1.1.9.md`
|
||||
- `apps/etl/connectors/feiqiu/tasks/dwd/dwd_load_task.py`
|
||||
|
||||
USER QUERIES(most recent first):
|
||||
1. `assistanton → assistant_no_int`integerdwd_assistant_trash_event助教编号。采样值: 1~99，22 个 distinct，0% NULL。⚠️ 注意：主表 `assistant_no` 实际映射自 `assistantname`（昵称），`assistanton` 才是真正编号新增 DWD 列 + FACT_MAPPINGS主表现在assistant_no 映射的ODS哪个字段？
|
||||
2. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
3. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
4. `assistanton → assistant_no_int`integerdwd_assistant_trash_event助教编号。采样值: 1~99，22 个 distinct，0% NULL。⚠️ 注意：主表 `assistant_no` 实际映射自 `assistantname`（昵称），`assistanton` 才是真正编号新增 DWD 列 + FACT_MAPPINGS主表现在assistant_no 映射的ODS哪个字段？
|
||||
5. Output:
|
||||
Hook execution failed with exit code 1.
|
||||
|
||||
Error output:
|
||||
[AUDIT REMINDER] Pending audit detected (root-file, dir:admin-web, dir:backend). Run /audit (Manual: Run /audit hook) to sync docs & write audit artifacts. (rate limit: 15min)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 1
|
||||
6. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
7. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
8. export\SYSTEM\REPORTS\field_audit\field_review_for_user.md文档要更新。首先， order_assistant_id 和 site_assistant_id 完全不同，不能粗略的mapping。然后，我更新了最新的json和数据库对比文档：export\SYSTEM\REPORTS\dataflow_analysis\dataflow_2026-02-20_005219.md 。文档中提及的上游存在，下游没有的字段，逐一分析字段存在的可能性（依据是字段名，数据库中遍历/枚举字段值，及各个相关的文档进行推测，尤其注意说明模糊或待补充的字段，要从所有文档中尽可能的寻找说明线索）。执行方式为：通过代理，以此读取所有1.1.X章节的内容（一次读取一个章节，然后循环）按上述要求，进行手工认真审核。跳过：- siteProfile嵌套内容。- 下游存在，上游没有的字段（如：ODS 无 JSON 源；DWD 无 ODS 源；）。- 1.1.22 settlement_ticket_details 小票详情跳过。单独注意：- 1.1.13 recharge_settlements：需要好好对比映射关系。- 1.1.15 goods_stock_summary：大量字段没有映射的原因。- 1.1.16 goods_stock_movements：大量字段没有映射的原因。- 1.1.17 site_tables_master：大量字段没有映射的原因。
|
||||
9. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
10. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
11. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
12. 分析下 order_assistant_id 和 site_assistant_id 是不是相同的？
|
||||
13. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
14. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
15. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
16. 给我输出个md文档吧
|
||||
17. Output:
|
||||
Hook execution failed with exit code 1.
|
||||
|
||||
Error output:
|
||||
[AUDIT REMINDER] Pending audit detected (root-file, dir:admin-web, dir:backend). Run /audit (Manual: Run /audit hook) to sync docs & write audit artifacts. (rate limit: 15min)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 1
|
||||
18. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
19. Output:
|
||||
Command executed successfully with no output.
|
||||
|
||||
Exit Code: 0
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
METADATA:
|
||||
The previous conversation had 10 messages.
|
||||
|
||||
INSTRUCTIONS:
|
||||
Continue working until the user query has been fully addressed. Do not ask for clarification - proceed with the work based on the context provided.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user