Python crashed after submitting our coupon inspection request. The local file says pending, and startup offers to submit it again. Pending also means never submitted elsewhere in the same file, which is a rather dangerous economy of words. I have stopped using that helper until we distinguish the cases; the inspection may already have completed.
Look for the surviving attempt identity before changing the old row. The job and quality records may know more than your local file, but an empty result field does not tell you the request stayed on the laptop.
The attempt identity was saved before submission. Our quality service has a result under that identity; I have asked its owner to reconcile it with the coupon and the installed job record.
Good place to start. Keep the physical coupon held under its existing identity while those owners compare the records, rather than putting it through a fresh inspection just to make your local file look complete.
Shift lead, with the coupon retained in our identified held-work location. Cover has that information. Nobody is being asked to rerun the job from the pending row.
And once the owner records a reconciliation decision, reopening must preserve that decision too. Uncertain forever is not the intended end state either.
Both cases are in the offline test plan: unresolved submission across repeated restarts, and a reconciled decision reopened afterwards. Definitely unsubmitted work remains separate; old ambiguous rows are not guessed into that category.
Yes. Quality and the integrator matched the coupon, attempt and completed result. The authorised reconciliation is recorded; the original coupon does not need a second inspection to repair our application's missing save.
The draft keeps the submission uncertainty and the later decision in one history. Cover can see why it was held and who reconciled it; physical continuation still follows the cell's agreed response.
Did the repeated-restart test pass, including reopening that saved reconciliation? Those are the cheap checks that should fail before anybody puts the helper back into normal use.
They pass offline. We also interrupted while saving the decision; reopening did not invent a retry or lose the unresolved state when the decision had not been committed. Installed comparison remains due.
Keep the original recovered case in the handover example. It demonstrates why a result missing locally did not mean the inspection never happened, without asking the operator to make that judgement from an empty field.