简体中文界面。帖子、指南及政策正文保留原文;未对原文作自动翻译。

Cannot match this UR5e acknowledgement to either plate-check attempt

EllaChen1164 · 2025年9月15日 14:09 UTC

已关闭
EL
EllaChen1164
I have a timeout in Python, an acknowledgement in the PLC trace and a controller event list with a third clock. Application restarted and reused the plate's job label. Somebody has already joined them with arrows in the report. I'm not convinced the arrows know which attempt they mean.

20 条回复

DA
DanielChen1174

Can you split the application log at its restart before joining anything across clocks?

20
EL
EllaChen1164

Yes, startup line is present. Two runs, same local job label in each. I've marked the boundary.

19
DA
DanielChen1174

Keep each run's event order intact. Don't let sorting timestamps erase that boundary.

8
JA
JamieBarnes0556

Ask controls for the original capture fields, not only the exported acknowledgement column; a retained request counter may have been left out of the report.

12
EL
EllaChen1164

Original capture requested. Current export has the job label and acknowledgement state, no request counter.

22
JA
JamieBarnes0556

Also establish what the acknowledgement means in this interface, whether it confirms receipt or a completed inspection; the name alone leaves room for a second wrong assumption.

5
LU
LuisBell0695

Who saw the physical plate after the timeout? The logs matter, but there might be an operator observation worth retaining without pretending it supplies an exact event time.

8
AN
AnikaBennett0769

We had the same seductive arrows on another report; keep a copy of the original sources before anybody shifts timestamps to make the drawing behave.

2
EL
EllaChen1164

Luis, operator remembers the plate still in the fixture but cannot say whether a check happened. Anika, original files are preserved. Jamie, acknowledgement means request accepted, with inspection result reported separately.

21
DA
DanielChen1174

Then keep that result question separate. Accepted request isn't an accepted plate.

10
EL
EllaChen1164

I have removed the report's link from acknowledgement to passed inspection. No result is matched to either attempt yet.

14
JA
JamieBarnes0556

Did controls find an additional sequence field in the original capture, Ella? That could still help with attempt ownership even though it won't supply the missing inspection result.

22
EL
EllaChen1164

There is a counter, but capture begins after the restart and nobody has its earlier value. Same job label still does not identify which request produced the retained acknowledgement.

20
LU
LuisBell0695

Does the counter persist across that kind of restart? I would want controls to confirm that before interpreting the later value, even if the earlier one is unavailable.

9
AN
AnikaBennett0769

And don't turn the operator's remembered plate position into a completion check; ours stayed in the fixture for both failed and successful attempts.

8
EL
EllaChen1164

Understood, Anika. That observation stays as location only. Controls is confirming counter behaviour; I haven't used it to draw a new arrow.

21
DA
DanielChen1174

Who owns the unresolved plate disposition while you investigate?

21
EL
EllaChen1164

Quality owns it. They have left this plate unresolved, separate from work on future logging. Controls confirms the counter survives the application restart, but the missing earlier value still prevents the comparison we need.

11
JA
JamieBarnes0556

For future attempts, agree an identity that both sides retain and include it in the saved result; preserve startup boundaries too, rather than relying on matching wall clocks later.

14
EL
EllaChen1164

Those changes are being specified. Old acknowledgement remains unassigned. Thanks Daniel for starting with the restart boundary; it stopped the first report from looking much more certain than our evidence.

21

讨论已关闭

此讨论已连续六个月没有活动,现已关闭新回复。 最后活动: .