A single return file item-by-item auditing method and system and a storage medium

Abstract

A kind of back single file item-by-item auditing method, system and storage medium, involve the technical field of computer software, the method includes: obtaining multiple to-be-audited files contained in back single, establish the audit state record bound with file identification, contain audit result and rejection evidence set;In response to the paste event triggered on the input area bound with file identification, prevent default paste behavior, and extract the file object of picture type from the clipboard data carried by paste event, upload to obtain image resource address, add image resource address to the rejection evidence set of corresponding audit state record;From each audit state record, filter out the to-be-audited file whose audit result is rejected, construct audit detail set based on the screening result;Generate audit request based on audit detail set and send, obtain the item-by-item audit result of back single.The present application reduces the number of human-computer interaction, improves the problem of image evidence misplacement attribution in multiple to-be-audited file scenario.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the technical field of computer software, and more particularly to a method, system, and storage medium for item-by-item review of return receipts. Background Technology

[0002] In the field of logistics and transportation management, return receipts, as supporting documents certifying the completion of waybill delivery, require multiple rounds of review before being archived. A single return receipt typically includes several different types of documents awaiting review, such as signed receipts and stamped receipts. Reviewers must provide review results for each of these documents in the same review process and provide verifiable grounds for rejection for any documents with issues.

[0003] In related technologies, receipt review systems typically provide review entry points for entire receipts. Reviewers display approval or rejection results for each receipt on the page, and fill in the reason for rejection via a text input box when rejecting. When reviewers need to provide evidence of rejection in image form, they usually first capture the image in other tools and save it as a local file, then upload the local file sequentially to the review record using an attachment selection control.

[0004] However, the above-mentioned review method has shortcomings in scenarios involving multiple documents awaiting review: since the review records are organized at the granular level of the entire receipt, the basis for rejection in the form of images is difficult to accurately attribute to a specific document awaiting review. Reviewers need to go through multiple human-computer interactions such as capturing, saving, selecting, and uploading a screenshot to enter a review record. Furthermore, image evidence between different documents awaiting review is prone to misattribution, which requires the rework party to communicate additionally to confirm the specific document awaiting review where the problem lies. This situation needs further improvement. Summary of the Invention

[0005] This application provides a method, system, and storage medium for item-by-item review of return receipts, which reduces the number of human-computer interactions for image-based rejection evidence in return receipt review scenarios involving multiple documents to be reviewed, and ensures that image evidence is accurately attributed to the corresponding documents to be reviewed.

[0006] In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a method for item-by-item review of return receipt documents, the method comprising: The system retrieves multiple pending documents contained in the receipt and establishes an audit status record for each pending document, which is bound to a document identifier. The audit status record includes the audit result and a set of rejection evidence. In response to a paste event triggered on an input area bound to the file identifier, the default paste behavior of the paste event is prevented, and a file object of the image type is extracted from the clipboard data carried by the paste event; The image resource address is obtained by uploading the file object; the image resource address is added to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record, using the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event as an index; The pending documents with a rejection result are selected from the review status records. A review detail set is constructed based on the selection results. Each review detail in the review detail set includes the document identifier, the reason for rejection, and evidence data obtained based on the set of rejection evidence. An audit request is generated and sent based on the audit details set, and the item-by-item audit results of the receipt are obtained.

[0007] In the above embodiments, this application first obtains multiple documents to be reviewed contained in the receipt, and establishes a review status record bound to the document identifier for each document to be reviewed, so that the review results and the set of rejection evidence are maintained separately according to the document identifier; then, the paste event is bound to the input area corresponding to the document identifier, and the default paste behavior is prevented when the paste event is triggered. The image type file object is extracted from the clipboard data carried by the paste event and the image resource address is uploaded; then, the image resource address is added to the set of rejection evidence of the corresponding review status record using the document identifier bound to the input area that triggers the paste event as an index; finally, the documents to be reviewed with the review result of rejection are selected from each review status record, a review details set containing document identifier, rejection reason and evidence data is constructed and a review request is generated and issued; this application not only reduces the number of human-computer interactions for image-based rejection evidence, allowing reviewers to complete the input of image evidence with a single paste operation, but also uses the document identifier index of the paste event source to maintain a stable attribution relationship between image evidence and the document to be reviewed, improving the problem of misattribution of image evidence in scenarios with multiple documents to be reviewed, thereby improving the accuracy of rework communication.

[0008] In some embodiments, before generating and sending an audit request based on the audit details set, the method further includes: When all the audit results in each of the audit status records have been determined, the overall audit conclusion of the receipt is obtained based on each of the audit results; wherein, if at least one of the audit results is a rejection, the overall audit conclusion is a rejection; if all the audit results are passed, the overall audit conclusion is passed. The audit request includes the overall audit conclusion.

[0009] In the above embodiments, when the audit results in each audit status record have been determined, the overall audit conclusion of the return slip is inferred based on each audit result. If at least one of the audit results is rejected, the overall audit conclusion is set to rejected. Only when all audit results are passed is the overall audit conclusion set to passed, and the overall audit conclusion is sent together with the audit request. This improves the consistency between the overall audit conclusion and the audit results of each document to be audited.

[0010] In some embodiments, after obtaining the plurality of documents to be reviewed contained in the receipt, the method further includes: Obtain the address string of historical evidence recorded in a predetermined format from the historical review records of the document to be reviewed; The historical evidence addresses are parsed according to the predetermined format to obtain several image resource addresses; Each of the obtained image resource addresses is added to the set of rejection evidence in the corresponding review status record.

[0011] In the above embodiments, after obtaining multiple documents to be reviewed, this application reads the historical evidence addresses recorded in a predetermined format from the historical review records of the documents to be reviewed, parses them according to the predetermined format to obtain several image resource addresses, and adds each obtained image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record; so that the image evidence recorded in the historical review rounds can be displayed for reference in the current review, reducing the proportion of image evidence lost during the cross-round flow of review records.

[0012] In some embodiments, the binding of the input area to the file identifier includes: When rendering the file card corresponding to the file to be reviewed, the file identifier is injected as a closure parameter into the event handling function of the paste event; When the event handling function is triggered, the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event is obtained from the closure parameter.

[0013] In the above embodiments, when rendering the file card corresponding to the file to be reviewed, this application injects the file identifier as a closure parameter into the event handling function of the paste event. When the event handling function is triggered, the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event is directly obtained from the closure parameter; this improves the proportion of file identifier recognition deviation in fast switching and asynchronous processing scenarios.

[0014] In some embodiments, the set of rejected evidence is grouped and organized according to the reasons for rejection; the step of preventing the default paste behavior of the paste event in response to a paste event triggered on the input area bound to the file identifier, and extracting the image type file object from the clipboard data carried by the paste event, includes: In response to a paste event triggered on an input area bound to the file identifier, identify the rejection reason category currently pointed to by the input area, assign a paste sequence number to the paste event, and prevent the default paste behavior of the paste event; Image file objects are extracted from the clipboard data carried by the paste event, and image serial numbers are assigned to each file object according to the extraction order. During the synchronous processing phase of the paste event, a binding snapshot is established using the file object as an index. The binding snapshot includes the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event, the identified rejection reason category, the paste sequence number, and the image sequence number.

[0015] In the above embodiments, since a single clipboard paste event may carry multiple image file objects, and subsequent uploads are asynchronous processes, if the current binding relationship of the input area is retrieved in the asynchronous callback, it is easy to read incorrect file identifiers and rejection reason categories because the reviewer has switched the input area. This application identifies the rejection reason category currently pointed to by the input area when the paste event is triggered, assigns a paste sequence number to the paste event, and assigns image sequence numbers to each file object according to the extraction order. Then, during the synchronous processing phase of the paste event, a binding snapshot containing file identifiers, rejection reason categories, paste sequence numbers, and image sequence numbers is established using the file objects as indexes. This not only solidifies the context information required for asynchronous uploads in the synchronous processing phase but also improves the proportion of reading incorrect context during the asynchronous callback phase.

[0016] In some embodiments, the step of obtaining the image resource address based on the uploaded file object, and adding the image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record using the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event as an index, includes: Asynchronously initiate the upload for each of the aforementioned file objects to obtain the corresponding image resource address; Using the uploaded file object as an index, read the file identifier and rejection reason category bound to the input area that triggered the paste event from the bound snapshot; The image resource address is added to the set of rejected evidence in the review status record indexed by the read file identifier, under the evidence group corresponding to the rejection reason classification.

[0017] In the above embodiments, since multiple file objects need to be uploaded asynchronously, if the attribution information is obtained from the current interface state after obtaining the image resource address, it may no longer be consistent with the input area when pasting occurs. This application initiates the upload of each file object asynchronously. After obtaining the corresponding image resource address, it reads the file identifier and rejection reason classification when pasting occurs from the bound snapshot using the uploaded file object as the index, and then adds the image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the review status record indexed by the read file identifier, under the evidence group corresponding to the rejection reason classification. This ensures that the storage path of the image resource address is consistent with the context when pasting occurs, and also makes the image evidence of the same file to be reviewed organized in an orderly manner according to the rejection reason classification.

[0018] In some embodiments, adding the image resource address to the set of rejected evidence indexed by the read file identifier, under the evidence group corresponding to the rejection reason classification, includes: During the synchronous processing phase of the pasting event, placeholder items are pre-set in the corresponding positions of the evidence groups corresponding to the rejection reason classification in the set of rejected evidence, using the pasting sequence number and the image sequence number in the bound snapshot as sorting keys; When the corresponding image resource address is obtained, the image resource address is filled into the corresponding placeholder, so that the image resource addresses in the same evidence group are arranged in ascending order according to the pasting sequence number, and the images in the same pasting sequence number are arranged in ascending order according to the image sequence number.

[0019] In the above embodiments, during the synchronous processing phase of the pasting event, this application uses the pasting sequence number and image sequence number in the bound snapshot as sorting keys to pre-set placeholders in the corresponding positions within the evidence group. When the corresponding image resource address is obtained, it is filled into the corresponding placeholder, so that the image resource addresses within the same evidence group are arranged in ascending order of pasting sequence number, and within the same pasting sequence number, they are arranged in ascending order of image sequence number. This ensures that the arrangement order of image resource addresses within the evidence group is consistent with the pasting order, and also improves the problem of disordered evidence display caused by differences in upload time.

[0020] In some embodiments, the method further includes: When the file object upload fails, the corresponding placeholder item is marked as a failure. When constructing the review details set based on the screening results, the set of rejected evidence is organized into grouped evidence data according to the rejection reason classification, so that each piece of evidence data retains the correspondence between the rejection reason classification and the corresponding image resource address, and the placeholder items marked as failures are excluded from the evidence data.

[0021] In the above embodiments, when a file object upload fails, the corresponding placeholder item is marked as a failure. When constructing the review details set, the rejected evidence set is organized into grouped evidence data according to the rejection reason classification, so that each piece of evidence data retains the correspondence between the rejection reason classification and its corresponding image resource address, and the placeholder item marked as a failure is excluded from the evidence data. This makes the evidence data retain the organizational relationship of the rejection reason classification dimension, reducing the proportion of missing items in the evidence data due to upload failure.

[0022] Secondly, embodiments of this application provide a system for item-by-item review of return receipts, the system comprising: The document review status management module is used to obtain multiple documents to be reviewed contained in the receipt, and to establish a review status record for each document to be reviewed, which is bound to a document identifier. The review status record includes the review result and a set of rejection evidence. The clipboard pasting processing module is used to respond to a pasting event triggered on an input area bound to the file identifier, prevent the default pasting behavior of the pasting event, extract an image type file object from the clipboard data carried by the pasting event, upload an image resource address based on the file object, and add the image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record according to the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the pasting event. The review submission processing module is used to filter out the documents to be reviewed that have been rejected based on the review status records, construct a review detail set based on the filtering results, and each review detail in the review detail set includes the document identifier, the reason for rejection, and evidence data obtained based on the set of rejection evidence. The module also generates and sends a review request based on the review detail set to obtain the item-by-item review results of the receipt.

[0023] Thirdly, embodiments of this application provide a computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, implements the method as described in the first aspect and any possible implementation thereof.

[0024] One or more technical solutions provided in the embodiments of this application have at least the following beneficial effects: 1. Establish an audit status record for each pending document bound to a file identifier, and bind the paste event to the input area corresponding to the file identifier. When the paste event is triggered, prevent the default paste behavior, extract image-type file objects from the clipboard data and upload them to obtain the image resource address. Using the file identifier bound to the input area that triggers the paste event as an index, add the image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding audit status record. The input operation of image-based rejection evidence is reduced from multiple human-computer interactions such as cropping, saving, selecting, and uploading to a single paste operation, reducing the number of human-computer interactions for image-based rejection evidence. At the same time, by using the file identifier index of the paste event source, a stable attribution relationship is maintained between image evidence and the pending document it points to, improving the problem of misattribution of image evidence in scenarios with multiple pending documents and improving the accuracy of rework communication. 2. When the audit results in each audit status record have been determined, the overall audit conclusion of the return form is inferred based on each audit result. If at least one audit result is rejected, the overall audit conclusion is rejected; if all audit results are passed, the overall audit conclusion is passed. This allows the overall audit conclusion to be automatically inferred by the system based on the audit results of each document to be audited, improving the consistency between the overall audit conclusion and the audit results of each document to be audited, and reducing the risk of misjudgment when manually determining the overall audit conclusion. 3. During the synchronous processing phase of the paste event, a bound snapshot containing file identifiers, rejection reason classifications, paste sequence numbers, and image sequence numbers is created. After the asynchronous upload is completed, the context of the paste event is read from the bound snapshot using the file object as an index, and placeholders are pre-set using the paste sequence number and image sequence number as sorting keys. When the image resource address is obtained, the corresponding placeholders are filled in. The context information required for asynchronous upload is solidified once during the synchronous processing phase, which improves the problem of reading incorrect context due to the reviewer switching the input area during the asynchronous callback phase. At the same time, it ensures that the order of image resource addresses in the evidence group is consistent with the paste order, which improves the problem of disordered evidence display caused by the difference in upload time. Attached Figure Description

[0025] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating a method for item-by-item review of return receipt documents in an embodiment of this application; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the creation of a binding snapshot and asynchronous backtracking in an embodiment of this application; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of placeholder item pre-setting and disordered backfilling in the embodiments of this application; Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of a module of a return receipt document item-by-item review system in an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0026] The terminology used in the following embodiments of this application is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of this application. As used in the specification of this application, the singular expressions “a,” “an,” “the,” “the,” and “this” are intended to include the plural expressions as well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It should also be understood that the term “and / or” as used in this application refers to any or all possible combinations including one or more of the listed items.

[0027] Hereinafter, the terms "first" and "second" are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as implying or suggesting relative importance or implicitly indicating the number of indicated technical features. Thus, a feature defined as "first" or "second" may explicitly or implicitly include one or more of that feature, and in the description of the embodiments of this application, unless otherwise stated, "multiple" means two or more.

[0028] To facilitate understanding, the application scenarios of the embodiments of this application are described below.

[0029] In the field of computer software technology, the return receipt in the logistics transportation management system serves as a credential document proving the completion of waybill delivery. A single return receipt typically includes multiple different types of documents to be audited, such as signed return receipts, stamped return receipts, and rejection certificates. Auditors need to provide audit results for each document to be audited in the same audit process and provide verifiable grounds for rejection for documents with problems.

[0030] In related technologies, the receipt review system organizes review records at the granularity of the entire receipt. Reviewers need to go through multiple human-computer interactions such as capturing, saving, selecting, and uploading a screenshot to enter a review record. Furthermore, image evidence between different documents to be reviewed is prone to misattribution, which requires the rework party to communicate additionally to confirm the specific document to be reviewed where the problem lies.

[0031] This application is mainly applied to the scenario of return receipt review in a logistics transportation management system containing multiple documents awaiting review. In this scenario, reviewers need to provide review results for each of the multiple documents awaiting review in a single review process and record the rejection evidence in image form. To solve the above technical problems, this application provides a method for reviewing return receipt documents item by item. An embodiment is described below, combined with... Figure 1 This application describes a method for item-by-item review of return receipt documents in an embodiment.

[0032] Please see Figure 1 The present application provides a method for item-by-item review of return receipt documents, which includes steps S101 to S105.

[0033] S101. Obtain the multiple documents to be reviewed contained in the receipt, and establish an audit status record for each document to be reviewed, which is bound to the document identifier. The audit status record contains the audit results and the set of rejection evidence.

[0034] Here, "receipt" refers to a set of supporting documents signed by the consignee after the waybill is delivered; "documents pending review" refers to individual supporting documents in the receipt that need to go through the review process, including but not limited to signed receipts, stamped receipts, and rejection certificates; "document identifier" refers to an identifier used to uniquely distinguish each document pending review within the system; "review status record" refers to record entries organized with the document identifier as the key; and "rejection evidence set" refers to a set of addresses used to carry the basis for rejection in the form of images.

[0035] Specifically, the system calls the receipt retrieval interface to retrieve receipt details and multiple pending review files based on the receipt identifier; it iterates through the retrieved pending review files and reads the file identifier of each file; it creates a review status record for each file identifier in memory, sets the initial value of the review result field to unreviewed, and sets the rejection evidence set to an empty set; the rejection evidence set is grouped and organized according to the rejection reason classification, with each rejection reason classification corresponding to an evidence group, and each evidence group carrying the image resource address under the corresponding classification; each review status record is loaded into a mapping table with the file identifier as the key, so that the corresponding review status record can be directly located through the file identifier in subsequent steps.

[0036] Furthermore, if the historical review records of the retrieved documents to be reviewed contain historical evidence addresses recorded in a predetermined format, the system parses these addresses to obtain several image resource addresses and adds each image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record. This allows image evidence already entered in previous review rounds to be displayed for reference in the current review round. The predetermined format includes, but is not limited to, strings concatenated by delimiters, arrays, structured objects, or key-value mappings. After obtaining the data, the system parses it according to the corresponding format and adds it to the corresponding rejection evidence set, without affecting the display effect of historical evidence.

[0037] S102. In response to a paste event triggered on an input area bound to a file identifier, prevent the default paste behavior of the paste event and extract a file object of the image type from the clipboard data carried by the paste event.

[0038] The input area refers to the editable control that carries the text and image evidence of the reasons for rejection; the paste event refers to the event object dispatched by the browser to the editable control after the operating system sends a request to the clipboard; clipboard data refers to the collection of multiple types of data items carried by the paste event object and provided by the operating system; and the file object refers to the binary carrier that can be used for file transfer and is taken from the clipboard data items.

[0039] Specifically, the system first injects the file identifier as a closure parameter into the paste event handler function when rendering the file card corresponding to each file to be reviewed, thus binding the input area with the corresponding file identifier. Then, it registers an event handler function on the input area to listen for the paste event. When the event handler function is triggered, it obtains the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event from the closure parameter and calls the default behavior blocking interface of the paste event to prevent the image from being inserted into the input area by default in the form of base64 encoded text or filename text. Finally, it iterates through the clipboard data item set carried by the paste event, identifies data items whose type identifier starts with "image / ", and obtains the image type file object through the file object retrieval interface of the data item.

[0040] It should be noted that since a single clipboard paste event may carry multiple image file objects, and subsequent uploads are asynchronous, retrieving the current binding relationship of the input area in the asynchronous callback could easily lead to incorrect context reading if the reviewer has already switched the input area; see reference. Figure 2 When a paste event is triggered, the system identifies the rejection reason category currently pointed to by the input area (e.g., category labels such as "image blurry," "missing seal," "missing signature," etc.), assigns a paste sequence number to the paste event according to the order of occurrence, and assigns an image sequence number to each file object according to the extraction order. Then, during the synchronous processing phase of the paste event, a binding snapshot is created using the file object as an index. The binding snapshot includes the file identifier, rejection reason category, paste sequence number, and image sequence number. The binding snapshot can be stored in a mapping table with the file object as the key, or in the file object's own extended attributes, or in a global snapshot pool using a combination of the paste sequence number and image sequence number as the key.

[0041] The binding of input regions to file identifiers can be achieved not only through closure parameter injection, but also by setting data attributes on the input region element and reading those attributes in the event handler function, passing the binding relationship down through the parent component, or by using the global state manager to look up the bound file identifier based on the currently active input region. The identification of rejection reason categories can also be obtained through the category identifier of the group container to which the input region belongs, the currently active category label, or the category attributes declared in advance on the input region.

[0042] S103. Obtain the image resource address based on the file object upload; using the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event as an index, add the image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record.

[0043] Among them, the image resource address refers to the resource location identifier returned by the file server for images that have been added to the database, which can be used for subsequent download and display.

[0044] Specifically, firstly, the upload process is initiated asynchronously for each file object, submitting the file object to the file server through the file upload interface; then, the asynchronous callbacks of each upload task are waited for, and the image resource address is read from the data returned by the callbacks; using the uploaded file object as an index, the file identifier and rejection reason category at the time of pasting are read from the binding snapshot established in S102; finally, the image resource address is added to the rejection evidence set of the review status record indexed by the read file identifier, and under the evidence group corresponding to the read rejection reason category, so that the database entry path of the image resource address is consistent with the context at the time of pasting.

[0045] It should be noted that, in order to ensure that the image resource addresses within the same evidence group are displayed in a consistent manner according to the pasting order, and to avoid display disorder caused by differences in upload time, please refer to... Figure 3 During the synchronous processing phase of the paste event, the system uses the paste sequence number and image sequence number in the bound snapshot as sorting keys to pre-set placeholders in the corresponding positions of the evidence groups corresponding to the rejection reason categories in the set of rejected evidence. When the corresponding image resource address is obtained after uploading, the image resource address is filled into the corresponding placeholder, so that the image resource addresses in the same evidence group are arranged in ascending order of paste sequence number, and within the same paste sequence number, they are arranged in ascending order of image sequence number. For example, if the reviewer first initiates two consecutive pastes on the file to be reviewed with file identifier 1001 under the "image blurry" category, the first paste carries one image and the second paste carries two images, then the system pre-sets three placeholders with sorting keys (1,1), (2,1), and (2,2) in the synchronous phase. Even if the image with sorting key (2,1) is uploaded later than the other two due to its larger size, the system can still fill it into the pre-set second placeholder, and finally the three images are arranged according to the actual order in which they were pasted.

[0046] It should be further explained that if a file object upload fails, the system will automatically initiate a retry within a preset number of attempts. If the retry count is exhausted and the upload still fails, the corresponding placeholder item will be marked as failed, and the reviewer will be prompted to re-paste it. Placeholder items marked as failed will retain their original sorting key positions within the evidence group, but will not participate in the assembly of subsequent evidence data. The addresses of other image resources within the same evidence group will still be displayed in the relative order of their original pasting sequence number and image sequence number to avoid a chain reaction of rearrangements caused by the removal of failed items.

[0047] S104. Select the pending documents whose review result is rejection from each review status record, and construct a review detail set based on the selection results. Each review detail in the review detail set includes a document identifier, a reason for rejection, and evidence data obtained based on the set of rejection evidence.

[0048] Among them, the review details set refers to the structured carrier used to submit the rejection details of each document to be reviewed to the server; the evidence data refers to the image resource address representation form derived from the rejection evidence set and which can be carried in the review details.

[0049] Specifically, the system first traverses the mapping table established in S101 and reads the audit result field of each audit status record; then it filters out the audit status records corresponding to the files to be audited whose audit result is rejection; next, for each filtered audit status record, the set of rejection evidence is organized into grouped evidence data according to its rejection reason classification. The evidence data uses the rejection reason classification as the key and the ordered sequence of image resource addresses under that classification as the value, for example, {Rejection Reason Classification A: [Image Resource Address 1, Image Resource Address 2, ...], Rejection Reason Classification B: [...]}, so that each piece of evidence data retains the correspondence between the rejection reason classification and its corresponding image resource address, and excludes placeholder items marked as failure from the evidence data; finally, the file identifier, rejection reason, and the organized evidence data are encapsulated into audit details and added to the audit details set.

[0050] S105. Generate an audit request based on the audit details set and send it to obtain the item-by-item audit results of the receipt.

[0051] Among them, the review request refers to a request carrier assembled according to the backend interface agreement, which includes a receipt identifier and a set of review details.

[0052] Specifically, the system iterates through a mapping table with file identifiers as keys to read the audit result fields of each audit status record. When all audit results are determined, the system infers the overall audit conclusion of the receipt based on the traversed audit results. If at least one audit result is rejected, the overall audit conclusion is set to rejected; if all audit results are passed, the overall audit conclusion is set to passed. This avoids inconsistencies between the overall audit conclusion and the item-by-item audit results due to manual judgment. The system loads the receipt identifier, overall audit conclusion, audit comments, and audit details into the request body according to the backend interface agreement. It then calls the backend audit interface to send an audit request. Finally, it receives the processing response returned by the backend, fills the audit results back into the audit interface, and updates the receipt status.

[0053] In this embodiment, an audit status record bound to a file identifier is established for each file to be audited. The paste event is bound to the input area corresponding to the file identifier, and the default paste behavior is prevented when the paste event is triggered. Then, the image type file object is extracted from the clipboard data. Using the file identifier bound to the input area where the paste event is located as an index, the uploaded image resource address is added to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding audit status record. Then, the files to be audited are filtered for rejection according to the audit result to construct an audit detail set and generate an audit request. Therefore, the input operation of image-based rejection evidence is reduced from multiple human-computer interactions to a single paste operation. The file identifier index of the paste event source ensures a stable attribution relationship between the image evidence and the file to be audited. This effectively solves the technical problem of excessive human-computer interactions and misattribution of image-based rejection evidence in the return audit scenario with multiple files to be audited. This improves the efficiency of image evidence input and the accuracy of rework communication.

[0054] It should be understood that the sequence number of each step in the above embodiments does not imply the order of execution. The execution order of each process should be determined by its function and internal logic, and should not constitute any limitation on the implementation process of the embodiments of this application.

[0055] Secondly, this application provides a system for reviewing return receipts item by item. The system for reviewing return receipts item by item is described below in conjunction with the aforementioned method for reviewing return receipts item by item.

[0056] Reference Figure 4 A system for item-by-item review of return receipts, the system comprising: The document review status management module is used to obtain multiple documents to be reviewed contained in the receipt, and to establish a review status record for each document to be reviewed, which is bound to the document identifier. The review status record includes the review result and the set of rejection evidence. The clipboard pasting processing module is used to respond to a pasting event triggered on an input area bound to a file identifier, prevent the default pasting behavior of the pasting event, extract the image type file object from the clipboard data carried by the pasting event, upload the image resource address based on the file object, and add the image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record according to the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the pasting event. The review submission processing module is used to filter out the documents to be reviewed that have been rejected based on the review status records. It constructs a review detail set based on the filtering results. Each review detail in the review detail set includes a document identifier, a reason for rejection, and evidence data obtained based on the set of evidence for rejection. It also generates and sends a review request based on the review detail set, and obtains the item-by-item review results of the receipt.

[0057] In one embodiment, this application provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements the item-by-item review method for return receipts as described in the above embodiments.

[0058] Specifically, computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), disk storage media, optical storage media, flash memory media, and other media capable of storing computer programs. When the computer program is loaded and executed by the processor, it implements all the steps of: obtaining multiple files to be reviewed contained in the receipt and establishing a review status record bound to a file identifier for each file to be reviewed; preventing the default paste behavior in response to a paste event triggered on the input area bound to the file identifier and extracting a file object of the image type from the clipboard data; uploading the image resource address based on the file object and adding the image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record using the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event as an index; filtering out the files to be reviewed with a rejection result from each review status record and constructing a review detail set based on the filtering results; and generating a review request based on the review detail set and sending it to the item-by-item review result of the receipt. The specific implementation of each of the above steps can be found in the detailed description of steps S101 to S105 in the aforementioned method embodiment, and will not be repeated here.

[0059] Those skilled in the art will understand that all or part of the steps in the above computer-readable storage medium embodiments can be implemented by hardware or by hardware related to computer program instructions; the computer program can be stored in the computer-readable storage medium, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, it completes the steps described in the above method embodiments.

Claims

1. A method for item-by-item review of return receipt documents, characterized in that, The method includes: The system retrieves multiple pending documents contained in the receipt and establishes an audit status record for each pending document, which is bound to a document identifier. The audit status record includes the audit result and a set of rejection evidence. In response to a paste event triggered on an input area bound to the file identifier, the default paste behavior of the paste event is prevented, and a file object of the image type is extracted from the clipboard data carried by the paste event; The image resource address is obtained by uploading the file object; the image resource address is added to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record, using the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event as an index; The pending documents with a rejection result are selected from the review status records. A review detail set is constructed based on the selection results. Each review detail in the review detail set includes the document identifier, the reason for rejection, and evidence data obtained based on the set of rejection evidence. An audit request is generated and sent based on the audit details set, and the item-by-item audit results of the receipt are obtained.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Before generating and sending an audit request based on the audit details set, the method further includes: When all the audit results in each of the audit status records have been determined, the overall audit conclusion of the receipt is obtained based on each of the audit results; wherein, if at least one of the audit results is a rejection, the overall audit conclusion is a rejection; if all the audit results are passed, the overall audit conclusion is passed. The audit request includes the overall audit conclusion.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, After obtaining the multiple documents to be reviewed contained in the receipt, the method further includes: Obtain the address string of historical evidence recorded in a predetermined format from the historical review records of the document to be reviewed; The historical evidence addresses are parsed according to the predetermined format to obtain several image resource addresses; Each of the obtained image resource addresses is added to the set of rejection evidence in the corresponding review status record.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The binding of the input area to the file identifier includes: When rendering the file card corresponding to the file to be reviewed, the file identifier is injected as a closure parameter into the event handling function of the paste event; When the event handling function is triggered, the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event is obtained from the closure parameter.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The set of rejected evidence is organized into groups according to the reasons for rejection; the step of responding to a paste event triggered on the input area bound to the file identifier, preventing the default paste behavior of the paste event, and extracting an image-type file object from the clipboard data carried by the paste event includes: In response to a paste event triggered on an input area bound to the file identifier, identify the rejection reason category currently pointed to by the input area, assign a paste sequence number to the paste event, and prevent the default paste behavior of the paste event; Image file objects are extracted from the clipboard data carried by the paste event, and image serial numbers are assigned to each file object according to the extraction order. During the synchronous processing phase of the paste event, a binding snapshot is established using the file object as an index. The binding snapshot includes the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event, the identified rejection reason category, the paste sequence number, and the image sequence number.

6. The method according to claim 5, characterized in that, The process of uploading the image resource address based on the file object, using the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the paste event as an index, and adding the image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record, includes: Asynchronously initiate the upload for each of the aforementioned file objects to obtain the corresponding image resource address; Using the uploaded file object as an index, read the file identifier and rejection reason category bound to the input area that triggered the paste event from the bound snapshot; The image resource address is added to the set of rejected evidence in the review status record indexed by the read file identifier, under the evidence group corresponding to the rejection reason classification.

7. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that, The step of adding the image resource address to the set of rejected evidence indexed by the read file identifier, under the evidence group corresponding to the rejection reason classification, includes: During the synchronous processing phase of the pasting event, placeholder items are pre-set in the corresponding positions of the evidence groups corresponding to the rejection reason classification in the set of rejected evidence, using the pasting sequence number and the image sequence number in the bound snapshot as sorting keys; When the corresponding image resource address is obtained, the image resource address is filled into the corresponding placeholder, so that the image resource addresses in the same evidence group are arranged in ascending order according to the pasting sequence number, and the images in the same pasting sequence number are arranged in ascending order according to the image sequence number.

8. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that, The method further includes: When the file object upload fails, the corresponding placeholder item is marked as a failure. When constructing the review details set based on the screening results, the set of rejected evidence is organized into grouped evidence data according to the rejection reason classification, so that each piece of evidence data retains the correspondence between the rejection reason classification and the corresponding image resource address, and the placeholder items marked as failures are excluded from the evidence data.

9. A system for item-by-item review of return receipts, characterized in that, The system includes: The document review status management module is used to obtain multiple documents to be reviewed contained in the receipt, and to establish a review status record for each document to be reviewed, which is bound to a document identifier. The review status record includes the review result and a set of rejection evidence. The clipboard pasting processing module is used to respond to a pasting event triggered on an input area bound to the file identifier, prevent the default pasting behavior of the pasting event, extract an image type file object from the clipboard data carried by the pasting event, upload an image resource address based on the file object, and add the image resource address to the rejection evidence set of the corresponding review status record according to the file identifier bound to the input area that triggered the pasting event. The review submission processing module is used to filter out the documents to be reviewed that have been rejected based on the review status records, construct a review detail set based on the filtering results, and each review detail in the review detail set includes the document identifier, the reason for rejection, and evidence data obtained based on the set of rejection evidence. The module also generates and sends a review request based on the review detail set to obtain the item-by-item review results of the receipt.

10. A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that, When the computer program is executed by the processor, it implements the item-by-item review method for return receipts as described in any one of claims 1-8.

Images