Cannot match this UR5e acknowledgement to either plate-check attempt

EllaChen1164 · 15 Sept 2025, 14:09 UTC

Closed
EL
EllaChen1164
I have a timeout in Python, an acknowledgement in the PLC trace and a controller event list with a third clock. Application restarted and reused the plate's job label. Somebody has already joined them with arrows in the report. I'm not convinced the arrows know which attempt they mean.

20 replies

DA
DanielChen1174
Replying to EllaChen1164

Can you split the application log at its restart before joining anything across clocks?

20 points
EL
EllaChen1164
Replying to DanielChen1174

Yes, startup line is present. Two runs, same local job label in each. I've marked the boundary.

19 points
DA
DanielChen1174
Replying to EllaChen1164

Keep each run's event order intact. Don't let sorting timestamps erase that boundary.

8 points
JA
JamieBarnes0556
Replying to EllaChen1164

Ask controls for the original capture fields, not only the exported acknowledgement column; a retained request counter may have been left out of the report.

12 points
EL
EllaChen1164
Replying to JamieBarnes0556

Original capture requested. Current export has the job label and acknowledgement state, no request counter.

22 points
JA
JamieBarnes0556
Replying to EllaChen1164

Also establish what the acknowledgement means in this interface, whether it confirms receipt or a completed inspection; the name alone leaves room for a second wrong assumption.

5 points
LU
LuisBell0695
Replying to EllaChen1164

Who saw the physical plate after the timeout? The logs matter, but there might be an operator observation worth retaining without pretending it supplies an exact event time.

8 points
AN
AnikaBennett0769
Replying to EllaChen1164

We had the same seductive arrows on another report; keep a copy of the original sources before anybody shifts timestamps to make the drawing behave.

2 points
EL
EllaChen1164
Replying to LuisBell0695

Luis, operator remembers the plate still in the fixture but cannot say whether a check happened. Anika, original files are preserved. Jamie, acknowledgement means request accepted, with inspection result reported separately.

21 points
DA
DanielChen1174
Replying to EllaChen1164

Then keep that result question separate. Accepted request isn't an accepted plate.

10 points
EL
EllaChen1164
Replying to DanielChen1174

I have removed the report's link from acknowledgement to passed inspection. No result is matched to either attempt yet.

14 points
JA
JamieBarnes0556
Replying to EllaChen1164

Did controls find an additional sequence field in the original capture, Ella? That could still help with attempt ownership even though it won't supply the missing inspection result.

22 points
EL
EllaChen1164
Replying to JamieBarnes0556

There is a counter, but capture begins after the restart and nobody has its earlier value. Same job label still does not identify which request produced the retained acknowledgement.

20 points
LU
LuisBell0695
Replying to EllaChen1164

Does the counter persist across that kind of restart? I would want controls to confirm that before interpreting the later value, even if the earlier one is unavailable.

9 points
AN
AnikaBennett0769
Replying to EllaChen1164

And don't turn the operator's remembered plate position into a completion check; ours stayed in the fixture for both failed and successful attempts.

8 points
EL
EllaChen1164
Replying to AnikaBennett0769

Understood, Anika. That observation stays as location only. Controls is confirming counter behaviour; I haven't used it to draw a new arrow.

21 points
DA
DanielChen1174
Replying to EllaChen1164

Who owns the unresolved plate disposition while you investigate?

21 points
EL
EllaChen1164
Replying to DanielChen1174

Quality owns it. They have left this plate unresolved, separate from work on future logging. Controls confirms the counter survives the application restart, but the missing earlier value still prevents the comparison we need.

11 points
JA
JamieBarnes0556
Replying to EllaChen1164

For future attempts, agree an identity that both sides retain and include it in the saved result; preserve startup boundaries too, rather than relying on matching wall clocks later.

14 points
EL
EllaChen1164
Replying to JamieBarnes0556

Those changes are being specified. Old acknowledgement remains unassigned. Thanks Daniel for starting with the restart boundary; it stopped the first report from looking much more certain than our evidence.

21 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .