Cannot blame the FR10 connection while our writer blocks the status window

Only write times are recorded. The window freezes, then several lines arrive together. I cannot reconstruct their receive times from that file.

Replay a saved input with a deliberately slow log destination. Cheap way to see whether the application can stall without any controller connection involved.

We had a page refresh its clock while the value was old. Chen, does your display's timestamp belong to the response or to the window refresh?

Window refresh. It makes the old value look new when the display wakes up. That is a separate defect in the presentation.

Yes, keep the last response time with the value. For the replay, capture receive, processing and write timing separately so the slow destination test tells you which stage is blocked.

Anna, won't those extra timing logs suffer from the same slow writer?

They could. I should have said collect the timings independently of the writer under test, with bounded storage. Otherwise we're using the suspected bottleneck to tell us when it was busy.

I would also test a full or unavailable destination. A slow writer is inconvenient; an error that silently ends logging could leave a very different gap.

The replay stalls the window when the test writer sleeps. No network involved. The receive timing in the replay stays regular until our queue fills; after that the reader waits behind the writer too.

So a bigger queue only postpones it.

Correct. The developer proposes a separate writer and a bounded queue, with an explicit reporting gap if it cannot keep up. We still need to decide what happens to the status display during that gap.

Separate the current-status question from completeness of the saved log. If fresh responses still reach the display, it can show them while declaring a logging gap. If responses stop too, their age must make that visible. One green lamp cannot explain both.

Anna, that distinction would have helped our old page. Does the proposed interface have separate wording for those two conditions, Chen?

It does now: the reading has its own age and availability, while logging has a separate state. The test explicitly checks that a log gap does not acquire invented rows when the destination recovers.

Who checks the gap after a shift?

Put that in the handover, Chen. A warning nobody owns is just permanent decoration after a while.

The maintenance lead owns the diagnostic gap review. Slow, full and unavailable destination tests now behave as intended, and the workshop comparison shows current readings continuing during a logging pause. We found the application blockage; no network change was needed.

Thanks for closing the loop. Keep the slow-writer replay with the tests; it is a much more useful regression check than hoping the workshop folder gets busy at the right moment.