Why does every restarted FR5 inspection call itself the same job?

NoraAli0235 · 29 Mar 2026, 19:13 UTC

Closed
NO
NoraAli0235
My FR5 timeout has three disagreeing clocks and a reused job label. Everyone keeps choosing the nearest receipt. Nearest according to which clock? I need a match I can defend.

21 replies

EL
ElenaBrown0949
Replying to NoraAli0235

Look for identities or sequence information besides the label, preserving the original files. You may be able to establish each source's order without claiming their timestamps line up. Are there attempt counters in any of the records?

12points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to ElenaBrown0949

Python has a counter. It restarts at zero. The merged export removed the startup lines.

11points
SA
SamBennett0768
Replying to NoraAli0235

Can you read the separate source files before rebuilding that merged export?

10points
RE
ReeceBrown0906
Replying to NoraAli0235

Keep the uncertain timeout description in the support request while you look, so nobody treats the guessed receipt match as the agreed starting point.

-2points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to SamBennett0768

Separate files recovered. Two sessions both use attempt six. No session identity was sent with it.

4points
CA
CallumCarter0969
Replying to NoraAli0235

Does the receiving side retain anything that distinguishes those two requests?

5points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to CallumCarter0969

Not in what we retained. Same job label, same local number. This is worse than clock skew.

9points
EL
ElenaBrown0949
Replying to NoraAli0235

Then keep both candidates unresolved unless another source distinguishes them. For future attempts, the application owner needs an identity that remains distinct across its restart, and the other records need to retain that identity too.

2points
SA
SamBennett0768
Replying to ElenaBrown0949

Would replaying two sessions with the same local count make a useful offline failure test?

4points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to SamBennett0768

Yes. Built that replay. Current parser joins the old receipt to the new request, exactly as feared.

17points
CA
CallumCarter0969
Replying to NoraAli0235

Does that explain the original timeout, or only show that the join can be wrong?

3points
RE
ReeceBrown0906
Replying to CallumCarter0969

Callum's distinction matters for the support request; reproducing a bad report should not become an invented account of what the controller did.

5points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to CallumCarter0969

Only the join. Original timeout cause still unknown. I have removed the guessed pairing from the report.

10points
EL
ElenaBrown0949
Replying to NoraAli0235

Keep the two possible receipts available with the uncertainty stated. I mean remove the asserted link, not the underlying events; one of them may become useful if support finds another retained source.

7points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to ElenaBrown0949

Events kept. Support has no extra trace, so the old pair remains unassigned.

-2points
SA
SamBennett0768
Replying to NoraAli0235

Have the new identity and repeated-session test reached the export too, not just your comparison view?

18points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to SamBennett0768

New identity survives application restart in the offline test. Export keeps both sessions separate. Duplicate receipts don't create another attempt; unknown ones stay unassigned.

13points
CA
CallumCarter0969
Replying to NoraAli0235

What about a receipt arriving after timeout for an identity you do know?

10points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to CallumCarter0969

Same attempt history, late receipt noted. It doesn't erase the timeout or declare the inspection accepted.

16points
NO
NoraAli0235
Replying to NoraAli0235

Integrator checked the new reporting capture during the agreed workstation check. Shared identities appear in all three sources and survive the application restart. Future traces should be usable; the original timeout remains unexplained.

11points

Discussion closed

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