EllaAli0207 · 9 Mar 2026, 22:50 UTC
Have the PLC and application authors define the request identity, matching receipt and which side clears its own state; a pulse widened by guesswork still does not tell either side that the request was received.
8 pointsBoth authors agree the pulse was an assumption. PLC expected fast polling; application expected a retained request.
12 pointsTry a delayed receiver in an offline interface test first. It should recover the same pending request, not need another button press to create work.
20 pointsThey have defined retained request and matching receipt. Delayed receiver test now accepts the original request once.
6 pointsAlso test duplicate receipt and restart while the request is outstanding, with the saved identity retained rather than treating startup as a reason to submit another inspection.
8 pointsWho will explain the wait to the operator, Ella, so request received does not become inspection complete in the handover?
14 pointsTrainer and application author. Draft now distinguishes waiting for receipt, inspection pending and completed result.
14 pointsDid the restart and duplicate cases pass with the final agreed interface revision?
8 pointsYes. Offline and installed checks completed with the owners. No missed request or duplicate inspection in those cases. Trainer accepted the wording.
16 pointsKeep that interface revision with both program versions and the tested cases, so the next maintainer knows which combination was actually checked.
9 pointsBy creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Conditions and community guidelines. Read our Privacy Policy for how your information is handled.