fix: Intent node

[shaohuzhang1]

fix: Intent node --bug=1062137 --user=张展玮 【应用】意图识别节点存在空的意图项，可以发布应用成功 https://www.tapd.cn/62980211/s/1779110

[f2c-ci-robot]

Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[f2c-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[shaohuzhang1]

Some areas for improvement:

1. Duplicate Code: v-for loops with the same structure can be simplified. However, since Vue's data-binding works on individual elements within these loops, you might still need them as separate components/elements.

   <div key="item.id" v-for="(item, index) in form_data.branch">
       <!-- Item content -->
       
       
   </div>

2. Validation Logic: The existing code checks if there are duplicate values inside the array of branches. But it could do so more directly using Vue.js' reactivity system and error handling.

   Instead:

   const uniqueValues = new Set(form_data.value.branch.map(item => item.content));
   if (uniqueValues.size !== form_data.value.branch.length) {
       throw new Error(t('views.applicationWorkflow.nodes.intentNode.error2'));
   }

   This ensures that each branch should have unique names or contents without needing explicit checking per element.

3. Code Cleanup:

   Remove unnecessary comments and organize related blocks logically.

   For example, consolidating validation logic into one place simplifies readability.

4. Error Messages:

   Consider providing clearer contextual messages to users which would help diagnose what went wrong if an error occurs during processing or submission.

const validate = async () => {
  try {
    await nodeCascaderRef.value.validate()
    await intent_classify_form_ref.validate()

    // Check for uniqueness
    const unique_values = new Set(form_data.value.branch.map((item: any) =>
      item.content || item.label // Handle cases where label exists but content doesn't
    )
    if (unique_values.size !== form_data.value.branch.length) {
      throw new Error(t('views.applicationWorkflow.nodes.intentNode.error2'))
    }

  } catch (error) {
    return Promise.reject({ 
      node: props.nodeModel, 
      errorMessage: error.message || t('views.applicationWorkflow.common.validationFailed') 
    })
  }
}

5. Consistency:

   Ensure consistent use of camelCase for variable naming convention within the code block as they're already snake_case elsewhere.

These changes aim to make the form validation process more efficient and user-friendly while maintaining clarity.

[shaohuzhang1]

There appears to be an issue with the key name in classify: label is repeated, resulting in a warning due to duplicate keys when parsing JSON data. This can lead to inconsistent behavior and bugs if it isn't addressed properly.

Recommendation:

Rename the label within the classify object to avoid duplicates. Here's an updated version:

const formOptions = [
  {
    label: 'IntentNode',
    text: 'Match user questions with user-defined intent classifications',
    other: 'other',
    error2: 'Repeated intent',
    placeholder: 'Please choose a classification option',
    classify: {
      description: 'This field describes how intents are being classified.',
    },
  },
];

---

Additional Suggestions:

1. Consistent Object Key Naming: Ensure that all objects in the array have consistent naming patterns for easy maintenance and readability.

2. Error Handling: Consider adding more detailed handling for potential errors, such as validation checks before submitting user input.

3. Dynamic UI Elements: If you plan to dynamically generate these options based on some logic (e.g., based on user roles), ensure those elements are managed correctly.

4. API Integration: If this code will integrate with an API, consider any specific requirements or best practices for sending structured data.

By addressing these points, you can improve the robustness and maintainability of your code.

[shaohuzhang1]

The code looks mostly clean and well-structured. However, here are some minor improvements and points to consider:

• The error2 key appears to be an error message or hint related to intent duplication, but there is no corresponding error handling or user feedback mechanism in this context. Consider adding such mechanisms if needed.
• You might want to add a comma after "其他" to better align with the rest of the code.

Overall, the code is ready for production use without significant issues.