Closes#14768
### What problem does this PR solve?
The `list_chats` and `list_searches` REST API endpoints did not enforce
authorization on the `owner_ids` query parameter. Any authenticated user
could pass arbitrary tenant IDs to `owner_ids` and retrieve chats or
search apps belonging to other tenants they are not a member of.
This PR resolves the issue by:
1. Looking up the current user's authorized tenants via
`TenantService.get_joined_tenants_by_user_id` and rejecting any
`owner_ids` that fall outside that set.
2. When no `owner_ids` are provided, scoping the query to only the
user's authorized tenants instead of returning an unfiltered result.
3. Adding unit tests that verify unauthorized `owner_ids` are rejected
with `OPERATING_ERROR`.
### Type of change
- [x] Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
### What problem does this PR solve?
Addresses event-loop blocking under high concurrency reported in #13825.
When multiple requests hit the API simultaneously, synchronous DB/Redis
calls block the async event loop, preventing Quart from handling other
requests and causing cascading 502/504 timeouts.
This PR wraps all remaining blocking DB/Redis calls in `canvas_app.py`,
`chat_api.py`, `session.py`, and `canvas_service.py` with `await
thread_pool_exec()`
- Offload all synchronous `Service.*`, `REDIS_CONN.*`, and
`APIToken.query` calls to the thread pool
- Convert sync endpoint handlers (`list_chats`, `get_chat`, `templates`,
`sessions`, etc.) to `async def`
- Convert sync helper functions (`_ensure_owned_chat`,
`_validate_llm_id`, `_validate_dataset_ids`, etc.) to async - no
duplicate sync/async pairs
- Wrap `CanvasReplicaService` Redis IO calls (`bootstrap`,
`replace_for_set`, `commit_after_run`)
- Use `asyncio.gather()` for concurrent file uploads and chat response
building
**Note:** This fixes the code-level event-loop blocking, which is a
prerequisite for handling concurrent requests. For the full "30
concurrent requests without 502/504" goal described in the issue, users
should also tune deployment config:
- `WS=4` or higher (HTTP worker processes, default 1)
- `MAX_CONCURRENT_CHATS=50` (default 10)
- `SANDBOX_EXECUTOR_MANAGER_POOL_SIZE` for workflow-heavy workloads
### Performance verification
Reviewer asked for a before-vs-after comparison
([comment](https://github.com/infiniflow/ragflow/pull/13941#issuecomment-4393667231)).
I built a self-contained microbenchmark that reproduces the exact
failure mode this PR targets: an async handler that performs blocking
DB/Redis-style calls (50 ms each, 3 per request, 30 concurrent requests)
is run twice — once with the pre-PR pattern (sync call directly inside
the async handler) and once with the post-PR pattern (`await
thread_pool_exec(...)`). The benchmark imports nothing from RAGFlow
except `thread_pool_exec` itself, so it is hermetic and reproducible
(`THREAD_POOL_MAX_WORKERS=128`, Python 3.13.12).
**Throughput — wall-clock for 30 concurrent requests (lower is better)**
| flavour | wall(s) | p50(s) | p95(s) | max(s) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| before | 4.986 | 0.158 | 0.207 | 0.269 |
| after | 0.248 | 0.181 | 0.230 | 0.231 |
The pre-PR handler serializes the entire load on the event-loop thread,
so 30 × 3 × 50 ms ≈ 4.5 s shows up as the wall time. The post-PR handler
parallelizes the blocking work across the thread pool and finishes the
same load in 248 ms — a **~20× speedup** on this workload.
**Event-loop responsiveness — latency of an unrelated probe coroutine
while the 30 slow requests are running (lower is better)**
| flavour | samples | probe p50 (ms) | probe p95 (ms) | probe max (ms) |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| before | 1 | 5442.26 | 5442.26 | 5442.26 |
| after | 28 | 0.88 | 11.53 | 98.02 |
This is the metric that maps directly to "the API still answers other
requests while one is busy". A 5 ms-interval probe was scheduled while
the 30 slow handlers ran. With the pre-PR code the event loop was frozen
for the entire duration of the blocking work, so only one probe sample
was ever picked up and it waited **5,442 ms**. After the PR, 28 probe
samples landed with **p50 0.88 ms / p95 11.53 ms**, meaning unrelated
requests are no longer starved by the slow ones. That is the regression
mode behind the cascading 502/504s reported in #13825.
<details>
<summary>Raw benchmark output</summary>
```
config: 30 concurrent requests, 3 blocking calls of 50ms each per request, THREAD_POOL_MAX_WORKERS=128
=== Throughput (lower wall is better) ===
flavour wall(s) p50(s) p95(s) max(s)
before 4.986 0.158 0.207 0.269
after 0.248 0.181 0.230 0.231
=== Event-loop responsiveness (lower probe latency is better) ===
flavour samples probe p50(ms) probe p95(ms) probe max(ms)
before 1 5442.26 5442.26 5442.26
after 28 0.88 11.53 98.02
```
</details>
The benchmark script is included as a comment on the PR for
reproducibility.
### Type of change
- [x] Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [x] Performance Improvement
Closes [#13825](https://github.com/infiniflow/ragflow/issues/13825)
---------
Co-authored-by: tmimmanuel <tmimmanuel@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Kevin Hu <kevinhu.sh@gmail.com>
### What problem does this PR solve?
Refactor /api/v1/chats to be more RESTful.
### Type of change
- [x] Refactoring
---------
Co-authored-by: Jin Hai <haijin.chn@gmail.com>
### What problem does this PR solve?
Correctly set and display parent-child config in parser_config, and
allow to pass `tenant_id` in PATCH `/api/v1/chats`.
### Type of change
- [x] Bug Fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
### What problem does this PR solve?
Implements automatic adjustment of knowledge base chunk recall weights
based on user feedback (upvotes/downvotes). When users upvote or
downvote a response, the system locates the corresponding knowledge
snippets and adjusts their recall weight to improve future retrieval
quality.
**Closes #12670**
**How it works:**
1. User upvotes/downvotes a response via `POST /thumbup`
2. System extracts chunk IDs from the conversation reference
3. For each referenced chunk:
- Reads current `pagerank_fea` value from document store
- Increments (+1) for upvote or decrements (-1) for downvote
- Clamps weight to [0, 100] range
- Updates chunk in ES/Infinity/OceanBase
4. Future retrievals score these chunks higher/lower based on
accumulated feedback
**Files changed:**
- `api/db/services/chunk_feedback_service.py` - New service for updating
chunk pagerank weights
- `api/apps/conversation_app.py` - Integrated feedback service into
thumbup endpoint
- `test/testcases/test_web_api/test_chunk_feedback/` - Unit tests
### Type of change
- [x] New Feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
<!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai
-->
## Summary by CodeRabbit
* **New Features**
* Chat message feedback now updates per-chunk relevance weights
(feature-flag gated), with configurable weighting and atomic updates
across storage backends.
* **Bug Fixes**
* Stricter validation for message feedback inputs and more robust
handling of feedback transitions.
* **Tests**
* Expanded test coverage for chunk-feedback behavior, weighting
strategies, storage backends, and thumb-flip scenarios.
* **Chores**
* CI workflow extended to run the new chunk-feedback web API tests.
<!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
---------
Co-authored-by: mkdev11 <YOUR_GITHUB_ID+MkDev11@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: mkdev11 <MkDev11@users.noreply.github.com>
