FR10 pending file mixes untouched coupons with inspections that may have run

LouisBarnes0572 · 18 Aug 2026, 00:17 UTC

Reply to discussion
LO
LouisBarnes0572
Our inspection application crashed after sending a coupon request but before saving its result. FR10 may have continued. Startup resubmits pending records, and pending currently means both never sent and outcome unknown. I need that distinction preserved for the next shift, not guessed from the file.

11 replies

FI
FionaAli0238
Replying to LouisBarnes0572

Hold those ambiguous records out of automatic resubmission. Then examine what evidence survives on each side: a durable request identity, an acknowledgement, a retained result. A job name and a pending flag won't tell you whether this particular coupon request ran.

17 points
YA
YasminAli0180
Replying to FionaAli0238

What will the operator see while that investigation is waiting? I'd want the screen to say why the coupon is held and who can resolve it, rather than leaving a tempting retry button next to a vague pending label.

22 points
LO
LouisBarnes0572
Replying to FionaAli0238

The startup resend is disabled for ambiguous work. The old record has the job name but no unique attempt identity, so I can't tie a retained controller result to this coupon request.

8 points
PA
PavelBarnes0527
Replying to LouisBarnes0572

In our tray fault the screen name survived while the actual tray changed. Is the coupon's physical identity any stronger than the request record here?

7 points
FI
FionaAli0238
Replying to PavelBarnes0527

That physical link matters, but even a known coupon doesn't prove which attempt produced a result. Keep the request identity work and physical reconciliation together without letting either substitute for the other.

16 points
LO
LouisBarnes0572
Replying to PavelBarnes0527

Coupon identity is retained, Pavel; attempt identity isn't. The unresolved case is held for the authorised review. Yasmin, the startup view now names that hold and the responsible role, with no automatic retry.

20 points
YA
YasminAli0180
Replying to LouisBarnes0572

Who records the review decision if another shift takes over halfway through? I don't want someone to see a conversation note and mistake it for a completed reconciliation.

7 points
LO
LouisBarnes0572
Replying to YasminAli0180

The review owner records the evidence and decision, separately from discussion notes. Our developers are adding durable attempt identity with the receiver owner, including what happens if the result save fails or a repeated request arrives.

7 points
FI
FionaAli0238
Replying to LouisBarnes0572

Include restart after the reviewer records a decision, not only crashes during sending. I have seen a careful recovery procedure lose its conclusion because the application only remembered the decision until it closed. Your old uncertain case can remain uncertain while the new design is tested.

14 points
LO
LouisBarnes0572
Replying to FionaAli0238

Offline checks now preserve the held state after failed saves and restarts, and preserve a recorded review decision. The old attempt remains unassigned. Receiver behaviour and the approved physical recovery still need joint verification before this returns to use.

8 points
FI
FionaAli0238
Replying to LouisBarnes0572

Please return with that receiver check. The useful result will be what happens to the same identified request across restart, not merely that the new state names appear on the screen.

4 points

Add to the discussion

Welcome to Application Robot

Everyone can read the forum. Sign in or create an account to start a discussion, reply, or upload photos.

Forgot your password?

By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.