Our read-only dashboard expects the old SDK's value but the replacement environment returns a container; failed requests now become believable FR5 modes, and I need the interpretation fixed before anybody trusts this screen.
Save one successful and one failed response with the exact installed SDK version. Then compare them with its documentation before selecting any numeric field. The fact your existing labels can display a number isn't evidence that the number is a mode.
Rachel, a new number: our helper catches an extraction error and returns zero, which the screen labels as a mode; Nora, the saved failed container has no valid mode value according to the matching guide.
Would an explicit unavailable result avoid inventing that zero? I would still retain the failed response for diagnosis, rather than make the adapter quietly discard why it could not obtain a mode.
Yes, Bruno, but do not reject every zero either. Vera needs the documented success condition and payload validation, not a blacklist of values that looked embarrassing in the failed case.
And how are you selecting the old or new interpretation? Guessing from the container length will become another plausible-looking answer when a third shape turns up.
Rebecca, the helper tries the new extraction and falls back to the old path on any exception; I'm removing that guess and making the configured environment select its documented adapter.
Rachel's point belongs at startup. Verify the loaded package identity against the supported adapter and fail visibly on a mismatch. Don't make the first failed poll your version detector. Keep unexpected response forms distinguishable from ordinary documented read failures.
Does the display need the detailed failure reason, or only an unavailable state with somewhere to inspect the diagnostic record? I would avoid teaching operators to decode raw SDK containers.
Bruno, unavailable with a readable reason and a link to the diagnostic record; package mismatch is a startup error, while a documented unsuccessful poll is shown as a read failure, and neither supplies a numeric mode.
Nora, I agree on unexpected forms being distinct, but I'd also test one after a good reading; otherwise the parser can complain correctly while the display keeps the previous mode looking current.
Both cases are in the tests: successful zero remains a valid mode, failure supplies no current mode, and an unexpected container after success clears the current-state display while keeping any previous read explicitly historical.
Does historical identify the time of the successful read and its connection context? A screen refresh timestamp beside an old value can still make it look newly observed.
Would the same explanation be available before any good reading exists? A previous-value panel with a default entry would reintroduce the invention at startup.
Nora and Rebecca, historical values show their successful-read time and connection identity in a separate labelled area; Bruno, before the first success it says no successful reading, with no default mode. The maintainer has reproduced those screen checks from the saved cases.
Normal documented reads now pass in both supported environments, along with controlled failed reads, recovery and reopen checks; adapter mismatch and unexpected-form tests remain explicit errors, and the maintainer has accepted the mode-reporting fix with the version-linked examples retained.
Good, keep the regression that proves the old zero fallback is wrong alongside the valid-zero case. They explain why the fix checks the response contract instead of merely refusing an inconvenient number.