IsabelAdams0126 · 20 Jan 2026, 16:07 UTC
Have both authors name the writer and meaning of each ordinary signal together.
19 pointsOur handover used 'accepted' for both receiving a request and accepting the part. Sort those meanings out before agreeing the clearing sequence.
16 pointsWhich message did the operator actually see after the missed request, Isabel?
18 pointsOliver, 'coupon rejected'. There is no inspection result behind that message. Hana, the application author says acknowledgement means request received; the PLC note calls it inspection accepted. That explains some of the disagreement.
6 pointsThen the screen text is wrong for that case regardless of how they repair the request timing. Keep it on the work list.
20 pointsDid the authors agree one acknowledgement meaning yet?
13 pointsReceipt only is agreed. Completion and its result are separate. The draft keeps the request identifiable until receipt and names which side writes and clears each part of the exchange.
23 pointsIsabel, what if receipt comes back after the application has declared a timeout? Our tidy normal sequence did not answer that.
14 pointsAnd what does the operator do during that timeout, while the authors are debating its signal names?
20 pointsHana, late receipt is still an open design case. Oliver, the proposed screen says receipt uncertain and calls for the named support contact, without offering a blind repeat. We need to test that wording with our operator.
14 pointsI wouldn't call the interface complete with that case open. An ordinary delay is not some exotic future enhancement.
14 pointsAgreed. Put it in the required cases before implementation is signed off.
4 pointsIt is required. The authors have now defined the late-receipt handling against the original attempt identity and added a controlled delayed-reply test. I was too quick to describe the normal exchange as the main thing.
20 pointsInclude duplicate receipt as well, since clearing and seeing the same value again should not start a second inspection.
2 pointsDelayed and duplicate receipt tests passed in the offline interface check. The operator correctly distinguished uncertain receipt from an actual rejected coupon in the walkthrough. Installed integration checks remain, but the contradictory note and misleading screen label are corrected.
9 pointsWas the support contact able to identify the attempt from the operator's screen during that walkthrough?
8 pointsThis discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .