Which SDK folder is my script actually using? (read-only connection verification)

TheoAbbott0062 · 29 May 2026, 03:50 UTC

Reply to discussion
TH
TheoAbbott0062
Our old laptop runs the read-only read-only connection verification script for Fairino FR10, but the rebuilt one rejects an argument without reaching the controller. The script hasn't changed. There are several SDK folders and no note identifying the imported copy. We're in a workshop inspection station, using a sample bracket as a reference.

16 replies

HE
HenryArcher0351
Replying to TheoAbbott0062

@TheoAbbott0062 Which module path does the script's own interpreter load on each laptop? I'd start there; the names on the SDK folders don't tell you what's running.

11 points
TH
TheoAbbott0062
Replying to HenryArcher0351

@HenryArcher0351 The paths differ: our vendor folder on the old laptop, an installed package on the rebuilt one. I'd compared the scripts and completely missed what they imported.

12 points
HE
HenryArcher0351
Replying to TheoAbbott0062

Preserve your working copy and compare the two function signatures. Recreating it in an isolated environment should answer the laptop part of the problem.

24 points
MA
MayaBell0649
Replying to HenryArcher0351

Does recreating that copy really settle the laptop side? It could fix the signature mismatch while leaving a different launcher or dependency problem.

9 points
HE
HenryArcher0351
Replying to MayaBell0649

You're right; I overstated it. Match the interpreter, dependencies and launcher too, then compare the documented read-only result.

18 points
TH
TheoAbbott0062
Replying to HenryArcher0351

I've found a signature difference exactly where the argument is rejected. Both SDK copies are preserved, and our working laptop is still untouched.

14 points
AL
AlexBennett0733
Replying to TheoAbbott0062

Why not change the argument? I'd have tried that first

8 points
HE
HenryArcher0351
Replying to AlexBennett0733

@AlexBennett0733 It could remove the local error. You'd still need matching SDK documentation and confirmation of the controller pairing; accepting the arguments doesn't establish the rest of the behaviour.

21 points
LI
LiamBaker0490
Replying to HenryArcher0351

@HenryArcher0351 My terminal and shortcut used different environments. I celebrated fixing the terminal. The shortcut wasn't impressed.

14 points
TH
TheoAbbott0062
Replying to LiamBaker0490

@LiamBaker0490 I've checked the launcher we actually use as well. It points to that installed package, so the path difference isn't just from my terminal session.

10 points
AL
AlexBennett0733
Replying to HenryArcher0351

@HenryArcher0351 Are SDK and controller version numbers supposed to match?

4 points
HE
HenryArcher0351
Replying to AlexBennett0733

Treat them as separate identifiers unless the documentation says otherwise. Look for a stated pairing, or send both identifiers to support for confirmation.

19 points
TH
TheoAbbott0062
Replying to HenryArcher0351

Our maintenance record and the controller version screen agree. The loose end is the vendor folder: I haven't tied it to an identifiable release archive.

3 points
LI
LiamBaker0490
Replying to TheoAbbott0062

Checksums help compare copies. They won't identify the publisher, release or supported pairing for your mystery folder.

7 points
TH
TheoAbbott0062
Replying to LiamBaker0490

The different import paths give me a useful starting point. I still haven't established the supported environment we need to finish the rebuild.

4 points
HE
HenryArcher0351
Replying to TheoAbbott0062

Different imports are a useful lead. Keeping the rebuild open until the supported environment is established matches what you've found.

25 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.