fix: add missing edge from AstraDB Search Results to Parser in Vector Store RAG template

[viktoravelino]

Summary

• The Vector Store RAG.json template was missing the edge connecting the Search Results output of the Astra DB (retriever) component (AstraDB-hIUdP) to the JSON or Table input of the Parser component (parser-w1MvR)
• This caused a broken/floating edge to appear on the canvas whenever the template was opened, as the AstraDB node's search_results output had no target connection
• Added the missing edge with the correct source/target handle metadata (output_types: ["JSON"] → inputTypes: ["DataFrame", "Table", "Data", "JSON"])

Test plan

• Open Langflow and create a new flow using the Vector Store RAG template
• Verify no broken or disconnected edges are visible on the canvas
• Verify the Retriever Flow sub-flow shows a connected edge from Astra DB's Search Results output to the Parser's JSON or Table input
• Verify the full RAG flow chain is intact: Chat Input → Astra DB (search_results) → Parser → Prompt → Language Model → Chat Output

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 9f499e27-3ab7-49c3-9e03-4d1a453b1b8d

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch fix/LE-643

📝 Coding Plan

• Generate coding plan for human review comments

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

Frontend Unit Test Coverage Report

Coverage Summary

Lines	Statements	Branches	Functions
	24.37% (8698/35681)	17.19% (4832/28095)	17.05% (1275/7474)

Unit Test Results

Tests	Skipped	Failures	Errors	Time
2783	0 💤	0 ❌	0 🔥	45.345s ⏱️

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 38.21%. Comparing base (7d4ffbc) to head (fca3b68).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on release-1.9.0.

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (44.58%) is below the target coverage (60.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##           release-1.9.0   #12261      +/-   ##
=================================================
- Coverage          38.23%   38.21%   -0.02%     
=================================================
  Files               1647     1647              
  Lines              82369    82369              
  Branches           12223    12223              
=================================================
- Hits               31494    31481      -13     
- Misses             49092    49105      +13     
  Partials            1783     1783              

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	54.69% <ø> (-0.06%)	⬇️
frontend	21.75% <ø> (ø)
lfx	44.58% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 8 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[erichare]

@viktoravelino thank you so much for doing this - i didnt see this and merged in a big unified models refactor which included restoring to that link as a consequence. Do you mind checking to see if it works okay for you on release-1.9.0? If so maybe we can close this, or if not maybe you can resolve the conflicts and then i'll test and approve this

[viktoravelino]

@viktoravelino thank you so much for doing this - i didnt see this and merged in a big unified models refactor which included restoring to that link as a consequence. Do you mind checking to see if it works okay for you on release-1.9.0? If so maybe we can close this, or if not maybe you can resolve the conflicts and then i'll test and approve this

@erichare Yeah, looks like 1.9 is fine. I'll close it and mention on the Jira ticket

[viktoravelino]

This was fixed before....

[erichare]

Thanks @viktoravelino - fixed in #12025