How to handle responses to entity prompts when the user says they don't have the entity information to provide?

Example: You have an entity defined to ask the user for their airline reservation number. The user may respond in one of the following ways:

  • Provide a valid reservation number
  • Provide an invalid reservation number, in which they should be then given a retry 2x
  • User says I do not have a reservation number, which we then want to ask for an alternative entity value (i.e. Credit Card Number)

How do you define an entity which supports regex validation, retry 2x’s, and handling for when the input is a variation of I do not have a reservation number?

I want to avoid adding confirmation logic ahead of the entity to handle this in order to provide a more seamless user experience. I.e. I don’t want to ask: do you have a reservation number then if yes/no handle accordingly.

Thank you in advance for your recommendations!

@mackenzie.lyles ,

Did you try setting the “Number of retries” and “Behaviour on number of retries” in the entity node?

Also, to define an entity with regEx, you can select the entity type as custom.

Please refer to the below documentation links for further help:

Regards,
Yoga Ramya,
Kore Support.

I was informed of the concept of Node Groups. When defining a Node Group around my reservation number entity, I was able to create an Intent to identify utterances such as “I do not have a reservation number.” Within the intent definition I then set a transition flow definition of where I wanted the flow to go when a user said they did not have a reservation number.
image

One thing I have yet to figure out is how to handle a 4th scenario where the the user asks a question relating to an FAQ. Such as ‘Where can I find my reservation number?’ FAQ does not seem to be evaluated by the NLU when using a Node Group. Is this an expected behavior of Node Groups?

@mackenzie.lyles ,

1- For your initial post on handling the responses on the entity prompt, please let us know if the solution provided by us suffices the requirement.

2- Regarding grouping of nodes, are you saying that the grouping of nodes is not honoring the “Interruption behaviour at the node level”?
Also, if this is not related to the Post 1, then we can continue the discussion on node groups in a new post to avoid any ambiguity.

Regards,
Yoga Ramya