fix: validate first then save to db

[fatelei]

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 #30030

validate first then save to db

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

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @fatelei, 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 addresses a critical issue where invalid workflow tool configurations could be inadvertently saved to the database due to validation occurring after the database commit. The changes refactor the tool creation and loading mechanisms to enforce upfront validation, ensuring data integrity and preventing database pollution. Additionally, the update expands the types of default values supported for plugin parameters, allowing for more flexible and complex configurations, especially for file-related inputs. These improvements collectively enhance the robustness and reliability of workflow tool management.

Highlights

• Expanded Plugin Parameter Defaults: The default field within the PluginParameter class now supports list and dict types, in addition to existing primitive types. This enhancement allows for more complex default values, particularly beneficial for FILE and FILES parameter types which often require dictionary or list-of-dictionary defaults.
• Pre-Database Persistence Validation: The workflow for creating new tools has been refactored to ensure that validation occurs before any data is committed to the database. This prevents the persistence of invalid tool configurations, thereby enhancing data integrity and preventing database pollution.
• Refactored Database Session Management: Database session handling in WorkflowToolProviderController.from_db has been updated to utilize session_factory.create_session(). This change promotes consistent session management and streamlines the method by directly using the provided db_provider object for constructing the controller.
• Comprehensive Test Coverage: New integration tests have been added to specifically validate the handling of FILE and FILES parameter types with complex default values. These tests also confirm that validation errors correctly prevent database commits, ensuring the 'validate first then save' principle is upheld.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

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. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request addresses two important issues. First, it corrects the validation order in create_workflow_tool to ensure that a WorkflowToolProvider is validated before being saved to the database, preventing database pollution with invalid entries. This is accompanied by a new test case to verify this behavior. Second, it expands the allowed types for PluginParameter.default to include list and dict, fixing a Pydantic validation error for FILE and FILES parameter types.

The changes are logical and well-supported by new tests. However, I've found a critical regression in workflow_as_tool/provider.py where the provider_id is incorrectly hardcoded, which could affect operations on existing tools. I've also suggested uncommenting an assertion in a test file to ensure the fix for the database pollution issue is properly verified. Please address these points.

I am having trouble creating individual review comments. Click here to see my feedback.

api/core/tools/workflow_as_tool/provider.py (70)

The change from provider_id=provider.id or "" to provider_id="" is incorrect. While this works for validating a new, unsaved WorkflowToolProvider (where id would be None), it breaks the logic for existing providers that are loaded from the database, as their ID will be lost. This will cause issues in downstream logic that relies on provider_id, such as in ToolLabelManager.update_tool_labels.

The fix is to use the ID from the db_provider object, which will be present for existing providers and None for new ones.

                provider_id=db_provider.id or "",

api/tests/test_containers_integration_tests/services/tools/test_workflow_tools_manage_service.py (994)

The test test_create_workflow_tool_db_commit_before_validation is designed to verify that a failed validation does not leave a record in the database. The logic change in workflow_tools_manage_service.py implements this fix. Therefore, this assertion should be uncommented to ensure the test correctly verifies the fix.

        assert tool_count == 0  # Expected after fix