Who owns clearing the job handshake?

FionaBrooks0847 · 28 Mar 2026, 19:33 UTC

Reply to discussion
FI
FionaBrooks0847
Our application sometimes misses the PLC's brief request for sample verification. I'm reviewing that ordinary, non-safety handshake for Universal Robots UR5e in a workshop inspection station awaiting commissioning, with a reference plate in the setup. Signal ownership and clearing conditions aren't clearly documented. The safety functions are independently engineered and separate from this job interface.

10 replies

DA
DanielBarnes0565
Replying to FionaBrooks0847

Can you compare the request trace with your application's polls? Also note which side clears the request.

9 points
FI
FionaBrooks0847
Replying to DanielBarnes0565

@DanielBarnes0565 Our trace shows it rising and falling between two polls. The PLC clears it without an observed acknowledgement. No wonder the application misses it.

6 points
DA
DanielBarnes0565
Replying to FionaBrooks0847

Take an ownership table and a retained-request proposal to the interface owner. A request held until matching acknowledgement should settle the handshake in an offline review.

21 points
SA
SamAli0246
Replying to DanielBarnes0565

Settle it? Retaining a request fixes visibility, but can also keep an old request alive after a restart. Identity and reset rules matter.

-7 points
DA
DanielBarnes0565
Replying to SamAli0246

@SamAli0246 Yes, I overstated that. Retention addresses the missed pulse. The offline review also needs matching identity, reset ownership and restart cases before the design is complete.

25 points
FI
FionaBrooks0847
Replying to DanielBarnes0565

@DanielBarnes0565 Should I record readers as well as the single writer? Our existing phrase used by PLC doesn't distinguish setting, reading or clearing a field.

19 points
DA
DanielBarnes0565
Replying to FionaBrooks0847

Yes: writer, readers, meaning, set condition and clear condition. Then give each legal transition a concrete example.

24 points
HA
HazelAli0223
Replying to DanielBarnes0565

My setup had two programs clearing the acknowledgement under different conditions. Reviewing them together exposed a conflict that wasn't apparent from either program in isolation.

9 points
FI
FionaBrooks0847
Replying to HazelAli0223

@HazelAli0223 The missed pulse is explained, and I've got an ownership review to work from. Our complete handshake behaviour is still open.

13 points
DA
DanielBarnes0565
Replying to FionaBrooks0847

The trace gives the review a concrete starting point. Keeping the overall handshake open is fair.

23 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.