Skip to content

Conversation

@fatelei
Copy link
Contributor

@fatelei fatelei commented Jan 19, 2026

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 #31099

in second conversation

  • image type first is custom
  • second, use the build_from_message_file the type become image, so the check _is_file_valid_with_config fail

Screenshots

Before After
... ...

before

Screen.Recording.2026-01-19.at.10.48.48.mov

after

Screen.Recording.2026-01-19.at.10.44.42.mov

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

@fatelei fatelei requested a review from QuantumGhost as a code owner January 19, 2026 02:49
@dosubot dosubot bot added size:M This PR changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. 💪 enhancement New feature or request labels Jan 19, 2026
@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Contributor

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 bug where file type validation would fail in multi-turn conversations. The issue arose because a file initially classified as 'custom' could be re-evaluated to a more specific type (e.g., 'image') during subsequent processing, causing validation checks to incorrectly reject it. The solution involves introducing an original_type field to the File model, which preserves the file's initial type. This original_type is then used for validation and serialization, ensuring that files are consistently and correctly processed throughout their lifecycle within the application, particularly in conversational contexts.

Highlights

  • Introduction of original_type field: A new original_type field has been added to the File model to store the initial, user-specified file type, preventing its loss during subsequent processing or re-evaluation.
  • Preservation of original file type during serialization: The File model's serialization logic (to_dict and a new _serialize_model method) is updated to prioritize the original_type when outputting the file's type, ensuring that the original intent is reflected in serialized data.
  • Conditional file type determination in build_from_message_file: Logic has been added to build_from_message_file to conditionally set the file's type to FileType.CUSTOM if the configuration only allows custom types or specifies allowed extensions. Otherwise, it defaults to the type from the message file.
  • Validation using original_type: The file validation process, specifically _is_file_valid_with_config, now checks against the original_type if available, falling back to the current type field. This resolves issues where file types were incorrectly re-evaluated, leading to validation failures.
  • Propagation of original_type in file factory methods: Various file creation methods within file_factory.py (e.g., _build_from_local_file, _build_from_remote_url, _build_from_tool_file, _build_from_datasource_file) have been updated to correctly capture and set the original_type when constructing File objects.

🧠 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.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request introduces an original_type field to the File model to preserve the file type specified during upload, which is a good approach to fix the validation issue. The changes are logical and correctly address the problem. I've left a few comments with suggestions to improve code quality by removing redundancy and simplifying logic. Overall, this is a good contribution.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

💪 enhancement New feature or request size:M This PR changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Agent Node show File validation failed for file error

1 participant