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 #31450] fix(tools): fix ToolInvokeMessage Union type parsing issue #33238

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-21 20:52:55 -05:00 by yindo · 0 comments
yindo commented 2026-02-21 20:52:55 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Original Pull Request: https://github.com/langgenius/dify/pull/31450

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 https://github.com/langgenius/dify/issues/31451

Fix ToolInvokeMessage Union type parsing issue where JSON data returned by plugins was incorrectly parsed as FileMessage instead of JsonMessage.

Problem: When a plugin returns JSON data:

{
  "type": "json",
  "message": {"json_object": [{"cid": 9551, "summary": "..."}]},
  "meta": null
}

It was incorrectly parsed as FileMessage, causing assertions like isinstance(message.message, ToolInvokeMessage.JsonMessage) to fail.

Root Cause:

  • FileMessage was an empty class (pass) that could match any dict during Pydantic Union type resolution
  • JsonMessage.json_object only supported dict, but plugins often return list

Changes:

  • Add file_marker field and validator to FileMessage to prevent false matches with arbitrary dictionaries
  • Modify decode_blob_message to enforce correct message type based on the "type" field
  • Change JsonMessage.json_object type from dict to dict | list to support both arrays and objects

Screenshots

Before After
JSON data parsed as FileMessage (incorrect) JSON data parsed as JsonMessage (correct)

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 make lint and make type-check (backend) and cd web && npx lint-staged (frontend) to appease the lint gods
**Original Pull Request:** https://github.com/langgenius/dify/pull/31450 **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 https://github.com/langgenius/dify/issues/31451 Fix `ToolInvokeMessage` Union type parsing issue where JSON data returned by plugins was incorrectly parsed as `FileMessage` instead of `JsonMessage`. **Problem**: When a plugin returns JSON data: ```json { "type": "json", "message": {"json_object": [{"cid": 9551, "summary": "..."}]}, "meta": null } ``` It was incorrectly parsed as `FileMessage`, causing assertions like `isinstance(message.message, ToolInvokeMessage.JsonMessage)` to fail. **Root Cause**: - `FileMessage` was an empty class (`pass`) that could match any dict during Pydantic Union type resolution - `JsonMessage.json_object` only supported `dict`, but plugins often return `list` **Changes**: - Add `file_marker` field and validator to `FileMessage` to prevent false matches with arbitrary dictionaries - Modify `decode_blob_message` to enforce correct message type based on the `"type"` field - Change `JsonMessage.json_object` type from `dict` to `dict | list` to support both arrays and objects ## Screenshots | Before | After | |--------|-------| | JSON data parsed as `FileMessage` (incorrect) | JSON data parsed as `JsonMessage` (correct) | ## Checklist - [x] 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 `make lint` and `make type-check` (backend) and `cd web && npx lint-staged` (frontend) to appease the lint gods
yindo added the pull-request label 2026-02-21 20:52:55 -05:00
yindo closed this issue 2026-02-21 20:52:55 -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#33238
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?