In our offline test, delivering an old completion after a new attempt starts makes the new sample acceptance bookkeeping attempt look complete. The real setup uses Fairino FR10 in a workshop fixture-checking station, with an inspection coupon as a reference. I'm trying to exercise delayed and duplicate events reliably; random sleeps keep making the test hard to reproduce.
Our handler matches only the job label. The saved sequence reliably shows the earlier completion arriving after a new attempt begins and being attached to that new attempt.
Fair. I meant this reproduced wrong match, not the whole class. Keep it as one named schedule and add duplicates and timeout-then-acknowledgement separately
Keep the duplicate in diagnostic history while making the completion update idempotent, so receiving it again doesn't alter the accepted result or count
On my setup, checking the final count alone let a repeated notification slip through. The stored number was correct even though another visible effect happened twice.
Then make that explicit in the schedule: advance past the timeout, assert unknown, deliver the queued acknowledgement, and apply only the transition it actually supports
@RebeccaChan1126 Should that delayed acknowledgement only establish acceptance? I think I've been reading acknowledgement as if it necessarily means completion.
@LinAbbott0009 Follow your interface's definitions. If it acknowledges acceptance, it says nothing by itself about completion. Name those events differently in the test
I'll use distinct acceptance and completion events, with equally explicit expected states, so our fixtures don't blur the distinction we're trying to test.