Why does every restarted FR5 inspection call itself the same job?
NoraAli0235 · 29 Mar 2026, 19:13 UTC
21 replies
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?
12pointsPython has a counter. It restarts at zero. The merged export removed the startup lines.
11pointsCan you read the separate source files before rebuilding that merged export?
10pointsKeep the uncertain timeout description in the support request while you look, so nobody treats the guessed receipt match as the agreed starting point.
-2pointsSeparate files recovered. Two sessions both use attempt six. No session identity was sent with it.
4pointsDoes the receiving side retain anything that distinguishes those two requests?
5pointsNot in what we retained. Same job label, same local number. This is worse than clock skew.
9pointsThen 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.
2pointsWould replaying two sessions with the same local count make a useful offline failure test?
4pointsYes. Built that replay. Current parser joins the old receipt to the new request, exactly as feared.
17pointsDoes that explain the original timeout, or only show that the join can be wrong?
3pointsCallum's distinction matters for the support request; reproducing a bad report should not become an invented account of what the controller did.
5pointsOnly the join. Original timeout cause still unknown. I have removed the guessed pairing from the report.
10pointsKeep 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.
7pointsEvents kept. Support has no extra trace, so the old pair remains unassigned.
-2pointsHave the new identity and repeated-session test reached the export too, not just your comparison view?
18pointsNew identity survives application restart in the offline test. Export keeps both sessions separate. Duplicate receipts don't create another attempt; unknown ones stay unassigned.
13pointsWhat about a receipt arriving after timeout for an identity you do know?
10pointsSame attempt history, late receipt noted. It doesn't erase the timeout or declare the inspection accepted.
16pointsIntegrator 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.
11pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .