Our planned bush-loading interface calls receipt of a request ready, while the integrator reads ready as the loading area being available. Both teams have signed different notes. I want one agreed sequence, not a third reassuring label.
Which ready definition belongs in our UR5e lathe interface?
JonasChen1155 · 9 Apr 2026, 02:49 UTC
8 replies
Replying to JonasChen1155
Put the two meanings on separate lines and have both authors identify their source, conditions and ownership. A signature on contradictory wording hasn't settled the interface.
22pointsReplying to AlexAbbott0037
Machine author confirms receipt can occur while the loading area remains unavailable; integrator had treated that receipt as permission to advance the planned sequence.
14pointsReplying to JonasChen1155
Ask them to walk through exactly that waiting case together. It should be possible to show request received and area unavailable without somebody calling it a fault or clearing the request to get unstuck.
7pointsReplying to PriyaAbbott0046
Agreed, and keep the required safeguarding separate from these ordinary handshake definitions. Renaming ready doesn't establish the conditions for access.
2pointsReplying to JonasChen1155
Jonas, who is writing the covering operator's view of that wait? Two technically distinct states can still end up under one unhelpful screen message.
20pointsReplying to PriyaAbbott0046
Integrator owns the operator display, and both authors have agreed separate receipt and availability definitions with explicit clearing ownership.
5pointsReplying to JonasChen1155
The paper walkthrough now preserves a received request while availability is absent; restart during that wait remains unresolved, so the interface draft is not signed off.
17pointsReplying to JonasChen1155
That's the question to leave on the next review. Which state survives, how it is identified, and who reconciles it before the sequence resumes.
24pointsDiscussion closed
This discussion is closed to new replies after six months without activity. Last activity: .