langgenius/dify
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/langgenius/dify.git synced 2026-07-21 12:05:30 -04:00
Code Issues 775 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Only one list operator could be accessed from the next node #21497

New Issue
Open
opened 2026-02-21 20:12:50 -05:00 by yindo · 1 comment
yindo commented 2026-02-21 20:12:50 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Originally created by @Juanalbertw on GitHub (Jan 7, 2026).

Self Checks

  • I have read the Contributing Guide and Language Policy.
  • This is only for bug report, if you would like to ask a question, please head to Discussions.
  • I have searched for existing issues search for existing issues, including closed ones.
  • I confirm that I am using English to submit this report, otherwise it will be closed.
  • 【中文用户 & Non English User】请使用英语提交，否则会被关闭 ：）
  • Please do not modify this template :) and fill in all the required fields.

Dify version

1.11.2

Cloud or Self Hosted

Cloud

Steps to reproduce

Follow the mixed file processing example in docs: https://docs.dify.ai/en/use-dify/nodes/list-operator#mixed-file-processing-example

Essay Reviewer.yml

✔️ Expected Behavior

Output from both image list operator and doc list operator can be used in LLM.

❌ Actual Behavior

Image

Only either one of the list operators can be seen in the LLM.

Originally created by @Juanalbertw on GitHub (Jan 7, 2026). ### Self Checks - [x] I have read the [Contributing Guide](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) and [Language Policy](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/issues/1542). - [x] This is only for bug report, if you would like to ask a question, please head to [Discussions](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/discussions/categories/general). - [x] I have searched for existing issues [search for existing issues](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/issues), including closed ones. - [x] I confirm that I am using English to submit this report, otherwise it will be closed. - [x] 【中文用户 & Non English User】请使用英语提交，否则会被关闭 ：） - [x] Please do not modify this template :) and fill in all the required fields. ### Dify version 1.11.2 ### Cloud or Self Hosted Cloud ### Steps to reproduce Follow the mixed file processing example in docs: https://docs.dify.ai/en/use-dify/nodes/list-operator#mixed-file-processing-example [Essay Reviewer.yml](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/24466770/Essay.Reviewer.yml) ### ✔️ Expected Behavior Output from both image list operator and doc list operator can be used in LLM. ### ❌ Actual Behavior <img width="1467" height="768" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/fe19fefd-57f5-403a-a5da-2904f3916fef" /> Only either one of the list operators can be seen in the LLM.
yindo added the 🐞 bugstale labels 2026-02-21 20:12:50 -05:00
yindo commented 2026-02-21 20:12:50 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2026):

Hi @Juanalbertw! I'm Dosu and I’m helping the dify team.

This happens because both list operator nodes output their results under the same variable name (usually result), and when the LLM node pulls variables for its prompt, only one value per alias is included—so the last one wins and the other is overwritten. This is a known workflow/UI limitation, not a core platform bug.

To work around this, reference each list operator’s output using a unique variable name or alias in your LLM node’s prompt template. For example, instead of referencing both as result, use something like image_result and doc_result, mapping each to the correct upstream node’s output. This way, both outputs will be accessible in the LLM node at the same time.

If you want, you can share your Essay Reviewer.yml and I can point out exactly how to adjust the variable references for your case.

No recent code changes address this, so this workaround is the best approach for now. For more technical details, see the relevant code and workflow logic here and here.

To reply, just mention @dosu.

How did I do? Good | Irrelevant | Incorrect | Verbose | Hallucination | Report 🐛 | Other

Chat with Dosu Open in Cursor Join Discord Share on X

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Jan 7, 2026): <!-- Greeting --> Hi @Juanalbertw! I'm [Dosu](https://go.dosu.dev/dosubot) and I’m helping the dify team. <!-- Answer --> This happens because both list operator nodes output their results under the same variable name (usually result), and when the LLM node pulls variables for its prompt, only one value per alias is included—so the last one wins and the other is overwritten. This is a known workflow/UI limitation, not a core platform bug. To work around this, reference each list operator’s output using a unique variable name or alias in your LLM node’s prompt template. For example, instead of referencing both as result, use something like image_result and doc_result, mapping each to the correct upstream node’s output. This way, both outputs will be accessible in the LLM node at the same time. If you want, you can share your Essay Reviewer.yml and I can point out exactly how to adjust the variable references for your case. No recent code changes address this, so this workaround is the best approach for now. For more technical details, see the relevant code and workflow logic [here](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/blob/187bfafe8b001cf8afad95e257374f2b2e7e5983/api/core/workflow/nodes/list_operator/node.py#L37-L109) and [here](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/blob/187bfafe8b001cf8afad95e257374f2b2e7e5983/api/core/workflow/nodes/llm/node.py#L117-L1136). <!-- Dosu Comment Footer --> *To reply, just mention [@dosu](https://go.dosu.dev/dosubot).* --- <sup>How did I do? [Good](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/cab2f579-08ef-4b77-a928-25b33f3df2bf?feedback_type=great_response) | [Irrelevant](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/cab2f579-08ef-4b77-a928-25b33f3df2bf?feedback_type=irrelevant_answer) | [Incorrect](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/cab2f579-08ef-4b77-a928-25b33f3df2bf?feedback_type=incorrect_sources) | [Verbose](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/cab2f579-08ef-4b77-a928-25b33f3df2bf?feedback_type=too_verbose) | [Hallucination](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/cab2f579-08ef-4b77-a928-25b33f3df2bf?feedback_type=hallucination) | [Report 🐛](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/cab2f579-08ef-4b77-a928-25b33f3df2bf?feedback_type=bug_report) | [Other](https://app.dosu.dev/response-feedback/cab2f579-08ef-4b77-a928-25b33f3df2bf?feedback_type=other)</sup> [![Chat with Dosu](https://dosu.dev/dosu-chat-badge.svg)](https://app.dosu.dev/6088a4f4-073a-43f3-b3d4-4f06fb0c05a0/ask?utm_source=github)&nbsp;[![Open in Cursor](https://dosu.dev/dosu-in-cursor.svg)](https://cursor.com/link/prompt?text=This%20happens%20because%20both%20list%20operator%20nodes%20output%20their%20results%20under%20the%20same%20variable%20name%20%28usually%20result%29%2C%20and%20when%20the%20LLM%20node%20pulls%20variables%20for%20its%20prompt%2C%20only%20one%20value%20per%20alias%20is%20included%E2%80%94so%20the%20last%20one%20wins%20and%20the%20other%20is%20overwritten.%20This%20is%20a%20known%20workflow/UI%20limitation%2C%20not%20a%20core%20platform%20bug.%0A%0ATo%20work%20around%20this%2C%20reference%20each%20list%20operator%E2%80%99s%20output%20using%20a%20unique%20variable%20name%20or%20alias%20in%20your%20LLM%20node%E2%80%99s%20prompt%20template.%20For%20example%2C%20instead%20of%20referencing%20both%20as%20result%2C%20use%20something%20like%20image_result%20and%20doc_result%2C%20mapping%20each%20to%20the%20correct%20upstream%20node%E2%80%99s%20output.%20This%20way%2C%20both%20outputs%20will%20be%20accessible%20in%20the%20LLM%20node%20at%20the%20same%20time.%0A%0AIf%20you%20want%2C%20you%20can%20share%20your%20Essay%20Reviewer.yml%20and%20I%20can%20point%20out%20exactly%20how%20to%20adjust%20the%20variable%20references%20for%20your%20case.%0A%0ANo%20recent%20code%20changes%20address%20this%2C%20so%20this%20workaround%20is%20the%20best%20approach%20for%20now.%20For%20more%20technical%20details%2C%20see%20the%20relevant%20code%20and%20workflow%20logic%20%5Bhere%5D%28https%3A//github.com/langgenius/dify/blob/187bfafe8b001cf8afad95e257374f2b2e7e5983/api/core/workflow/nodes/list_operator/node.py%23L37-L109%29%20and%20%5Bhere%5D%28https%3A//github.com/langgenius/dify/blob/187bfafe8b001cf8afad95e257374f2b2e7e5983/api/core/workflow/nodes/llm/node.py%23L117-L1136%29.)&nbsp;[![Join Discord](https://img.shields.io/badge/join-5865F2?logo=discord&logoColor=white&label=)](https://go.dosu.dev/discord-bot)&nbsp;[![Share on X](https://img.shields.io/badge/X-share-black)](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=%40dosu_ai%20helped%20me%20solve%20this%20issue!&url=https%3A//github.com/langgenius/dify/issues/30685)
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
Knowledge Pipeline
Proposal
WIP
cloud
dependencies
feat:webapp
good first issue
outdated
performance
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 python:uv
refactor
size:L
stale
status: accepting prs
status: blocked
status: in discussion
stt & tts
vulnerablity
web
wont-fix
🌊 feat:workflow
🌚 invalid
🐞 bug
👻 feat:rag
💪 enhancement
📚 documentation
🔨 feat:tools
🙋‍♂️ question
🙏 help wanted
🤔 cant-reproduce
🤖 feat:agent
No Label stale 🐞 bug
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
yindo
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: langgenius/dify#21497
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?