misc fixes
This commit is contained in:
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ header-includes:
|
||||
- \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
|
||||
- \setkeys{Gin}{width=\linewidth,height=0.55\textheight,keepaspectratio}
|
||||
- \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
|
||||
- '\newcommand{\status}[1]{\hfill\textsc{\small #1}}'
|
||||
- \newcommand{\status}[1]{\texorpdfstring{\hfill{\normalfont\small\textsc{#1}}}{}}
|
||||
diagram:
|
||||
engine:
|
||||
mermaid:
|
||||
@@ -422,7 +422,7 @@ and generates the `NodeDef` with schema refs.
|
||||
```mermaid
|
||||
flowchart TB
|
||||
subgraph Server["Unified MCP Server"]
|
||||
Admin["wf_admin.*"]
|
||||
Admin["wf.admin.*"]
|
||||
Wf["wf.workflow.*"]
|
||||
Proxy["connection.tool_name"]
|
||||
end
|
||||
@@ -521,7 +521,8 @@ caught, final output validates against `output_schema`.
|
||||
|
||||
# Open Questions
|
||||
|
||||
- Output derivation: direct projection vs explicit final output mapping?
|
||||
- Should the legacy same-name top-level state output fallback be removed once
|
||||
explicit final output bindings are used everywhere?
|
||||
- Trace model for raw extra node output?
|
||||
- Isolated pure-Python execution: node type, tool backend, or separate API?
|
||||
- Retry policy vs non-idempotent side-effecting tools?
|
||||
@@ -534,7 +535,7 @@ caught, final output validates against `output_schema`.
|
||||
| Validation | Pydantic v2 |
|
||||
| Tool protocol | MCP |
|
||||
| MCP framework | FastMCP 3.2.4+ |
|
||||
| Storage | SQLite/PostgreSQL (planned) |
|
||||
| Storage | File-backed JSON stores today; SQLite/PostgreSQL planned |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user