our request vanishes before the inspection application sees it

OwenAli0225 · 5 Jan 2026, 19:01 UTC

Closed
OW
OwenAli0225
The PLC author calls a brief pulse an inspection request. Our FR10 application sometimes polls after it has gone. Their proposed fix is a longer pulse, but neither side can show who owns acknowledgement or when it clears. What should I put in front of both authors so we stop arguing about pulse length? This is the ordinary job interface, separate from the cell safety functions.

10 replies

RA
RaviAli0215
Replying to OwenAli0225

Draw one request through sending, acceptance and clearing with both authors. Put the owner beside every change, including what the receiver does if it sees the same request again.

3 points
OW
OwenAli0225
Replying to RaviAli0215

We did that with their current notes. PLC assumes acknowledgement means inspection finished. Application author means request received. That is rather more than a pulse-length problem.

23 points
JU
JuliaBaker0500
Replying to OwenAli0225

Sort the operator wording at the same time. If received appears as complete on the screen, someone will move on while the inspection hasn't happened. What does your screen actually say now?

11 points
DA
DanielBrown0913
Replying to OwenAli0225

Keep the inspection result separate too. Finished doesn't tell quality whether the housing passed, failed or has no usable result. I'd bring one example of each to that meeting.

7 points
RA
RaviAli0215
Replying to JuliaBaker0500

Julia, the wording matters, but I would settle what the events mean before naming buttons around them. Otherwise the screen team gets to make the missing interface decisions by accident.

4 points
OW
OwenAli0225
Replying to JuliaBaker0500

Julia, it says complete on acceptance. Daniel, the result is on a separate page, but nothing on the main screen tells the operator it may still be pending. I have attached both views to the joint review.

13 points
JU
JuliaBaker0500
Replying to RaviAli0215

Ravi, agreed on who decides. I want the operator looking at their examples before those decisions are signed off, not discovering the confusing bit after the screen's built.

9 points
DA
DanielBrown0913
Replying to OwenAli0225

Did the review include the application restarting after acceptance? That's where I'd be nervous about a second inspection getting requested because the first result wasn't saved.

14 points
OW
OwenAli0225
Replying to DanielBrown0913

Yes, Daniel. Restart and a delayed receiver are on the same worksheet. No implementation approved yet. The authors have agreed separate acceptance and result events; they still need to settle the unknown-outcome case and show it on the operator view.

15 points
RA
RaviAli0215
Replying to OwenAli0225

Keep that unknown case in the tests when the design is ready. A longer request by itself was never going to answer it.

10 points

Discussion closed

This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .