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

[PR #26992] Fix json in md when use quesion classifier node #31625

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-21 20:49:49 -05:00 by yindo · 0 comments
yindo commented 2026-02-21 20:49:49 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Original Pull Request: https://github.com/langgenius/dify/pull/26992

State: closed
Merged: Yes

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

Fixes #26976

Error Description

When using glm 4.6, llm may returns the following data format in the quesion classifier node

  1. case 1：
    <think> some content </think> ```json [{"keywords": ["2"], "category_id": "2", "category_name": "2"}] ```

this will cause error: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0)

  1. case 2:
    <think>some content。 the final JSON will be： ```json {"keywords": ["2"], "category_id": "2", "category_name": "2"} ``` some content 。 </think> ```json {"keywords": ["2"], "category_id": "2", "category_name": "2"} ```

this will cause error: Extra data: line 2 column 5 (char 66)

The current JSON parsing is greedy matching, and it will report an error when json format appears in the <think> </think> content and the final answer at the same time.

In order to fix the above two errors for minimal changes:

  1. Remove the think tag in the quesion classifier node
  2. Make the JSON parsing utility class compatible with both {} and []
  3. Add new unit tests

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
**Original Pull Request:** https://github.com/langgenius/dify/pull/26992 **State:** closed **Merged:** Yes --- > [!IMPORTANT] > > 1. Make sure you have read our [contribution guidelines](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md) > 1. Ensure there is an associated issue and you have been assigned to it > 1. Use the correct syntax to link this PR: `Fixes #<issue number>`. ## Summary Fixes #26976 ## Error Description When using glm 4.6, llm may returns the following data format in the quesion classifier node 1. case 1： ` <think> some content </think> ```json [{"keywords": ["2"], "category_id": "2", "category_name": "2"}] ``` ` this will cause error: Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0) 2. case 2: ` <think>some content。 the final JSON will be： ```json {"keywords": ["2"], "category_id": "2", "category_name": "2"} ``` some content 。 </think> ```json {"keywords": ["2"], "category_id": "2", "category_name": "2"} ``` ` this will cause error: Extra data: line 2 column 5 (char 66) The current JSON parsing is greedy matching, and it will report an error when `json format` appears in the ` <think> </think>` content and the final answer at the same time. In order to fix the above two errors for minimal changes: 1. Remove the think tag in the quesion classifier node 2. Make the JSON parsing utility class compatible with both {} and [] 3. Add new unit tests <!-- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. Please also include relevant motivation and context. List any dependencies that are required for this change. --> ## Screenshots | Before | After | |--------|-------| | ... | ... | ## Checklist - [ ] This change requires a documentation update, included: [Dify Document](https://github.com/langgenius/dify-docs) - [x] I understand that this PR may be closed in case there was no previous discussion or issues. (This doesn't apply to typos!) - [x] I've added a test for each change that was introduced, and I tried as much as possible to make a single atomic change. - [x] I've updated the documentation accordingly. - [x] I ran `dev/reformat`(backend) and `cd web && npx lint-staged`(frontend) to appease the lint gods
yindo added the pull-request label 2026-02-21 20:49:49 -05:00
yindo closed this issue 2026-02-21 20:49:49 -05:00
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 pull-request
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#31625
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?