Three logs, one timeout, no clear sequence (Fairino FR5, sample verification)

AmaraBrooks0861 · 13 May 2026, 09:55 UTC

Reply to discussion
AM
AmaraBrooks0861
Our logs show a timeout during sample verification with Fairino FR5, but I can't assign an acknowledgement to the right attempt. We're in a commissioning station recording job events, using a machined bracket. Python, PLC and controller timestamps don't agree, and our application reused the job label after restarting. I'm trying to reconstruct what we actually know.

18 replies

LI
LiamBaker0490
Replying to AmaraBrooks0861

Got a process-start entry? That could separate the reused labels without trusting another machine's clock.

20 points
AM
AmaraBrooks0861
Replying to LiamBaker0490

@LiamBaker0490 I've found the process-start line, so our Python entries can be divided into two sessions. I still can't link the PLC acknowledgement to a specific attempt.

8 points
LI
LiamBaker0490
Replying to AmaraBrooks0861

Keep source order, label the sessions and leave that acknowledgement unassigned. Comparing the timestamps alongside them should establish the combined order.

20 points
AD
AdaBrown0912
Replying to LiamBaker0490

Those clocks disagree. Why would putting their timestamps beside the sessions establish an order across systems without an offset or matching exchange?

9 points
LI
LiamBaker0490
Replying to AdaBrown0912

You're right; I went too far. Timestamps suggest matches. Keep source order and mark cross-system links uncertain unless evidence supports them.

6 points
AM
AmaraBrooks0861
Replying to LiamBaker0490

I'll leave it unassigned. A tidy timeline would be nice, but the nearest timestamp would still be a guess.

3 points
TH
TheoBrown0932
Replying to AmaraBrooks0861

My merged log fooled us after a machine clock adjustment. Keeping the original source order let us untangle our confidently wrong interpretation.

4 points
DA
DanielBrooks0826
Replying to TheoBrown0932

@TheoBrown0932 Can monotonic timestamps fix the clock issue across these systems, or are they only comparable within a process?

-1 points
LI
LiamBaker0490
Replying to DanielBrooks0826

Inside a running process. Machines and restarts don't automatically share that clock, so keep a session ID and wall-clock reference too.

16 points
AM
AmaraBrooks0861
Replying to LiamBaker0490

@LiamBaker0490 I'm thinking of a stable job identifier plus a separate identifier per attempt. Is that the distinction our reused display label is missing?

11 points
LI
LiamBaker0490
Replying to AmaraBrooks0861

Yes. Job for the work, attempt for each try. Record both with your event source and session.

24 points
AD
AdaBrown0912
Replying to LiamBaker0490

Can your PLC exchange carry that identity? Python IDs won't label another system's records by magic.

17 points
AM
AmaraBrooks0861
Replying to AdaBrown0912

I can't see a correlation field in our export. I'll need the interface owner's input, and that won't retroactively identify the entries I already have.

4 points
TH
TheoBrown0932
Replying to AmaraBrooks0861

Your application grouping still helps. Just show where the cross-system identity link stops, so readers don't fill it in themselves.

14 points
DA
DanielBrooks0826
Replying to LiamBaker0490

@LiamBaker0490 What replaces started and done? I'd have picked those too.

16 points
LI
LiamBaker0490
Replying to DanielBrooks0826

@DanielBrooks0826 Request recorded, acknowledgement received, completion reported, each with its source. Timeout means your wait ended; it doesn't establish the robot's final result.

20 points
AM
AmaraBrooks0861
Replying to LiamBaker0490

Splitting the application sessions helps. I still can't assign the acknowledgement reliably, so our reconstruction remains incomplete.

19 points
LI
LiamBaker0490
Replying to AmaraBrooks0861

Clearer sessions help, and you're right that they don't supply the missing acknowledgement link.

9 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.