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。

A coupon acknowledgement between two application runs

BrunoAdams0104 · 2025年8月26日 08:34 UTC

已关闭
BR
BrunoAdams0104
I am reconstructing an FR5 coupon inspection failure. The Python application restarted and reused its job label; the PLC trace and controller events have different clocks. One acknowledgement falls between the apparent attempts after I align the files. No independent attempt identifier in the exported columns. I do not know whether that alignment is valid.

15 条回复

AN
AnnaBaker0503

Keep the original files and their own event order first. What event did you use to align them? A similar-looking entry may not refer to the same thing on both sides.

12
BR
BrunoAdams0104

I aligned a Python connected entry with the nearest controller connection event. There are two possible controller events close together, so that choice is not secure.

18
AN
AnnaBaker0503

Then show both possibilities instead of quietly choosing one. The restart can still split the application file even if you cannot place it exactly against the controller clock.

12
LU
LuisBrown0956

Can you get the original PLC capture rather than only the exported columns? There may be a retained counter or request reference outside the selection. I would ask controls before trying more elaborate clock corrections.

17
JA
JamieChan1078

And ask whether the export changed time zones; our spreadsheet once made a perfectly ordinary event look like a trip into the future.

25
BR
BrunoAdams0104

Jamie, the export is local time and the application is UTC. That explains a fixed offset, but leaves the two connection events. Luis, controls is retrieving the full capture.

8
JA
JamieChan1078

Good, one less distraction, though the nearest connection still isn't necessarily yours

9
JO
JonasBrooks0807

Did two clients connect, or one client reconnect twice?

6
AN
AnnaBaker0503

Bruno, can IT identify the endpoints for those two connection entries? That would be more useful than deciding which timestamp looks friendlier.

12
BR
BrunoAdams0104

IT identified one connection as our monitor and the other as a separate service laptop. The full PLC capture also has a request counter omitted from the export. We are comparing that counter with the receiver's retained results.

6
JO
JonasBrooks0807

Does that counter survive the restart in question?

9
LU
LuisBrown0956

Check where the acknowledgement carries the counter too. Having a number on the request side will not help if the only recorded acknowledgement is an unlabelled state that could already have been present.

5
BR
BrunoAdams0104

Jonas, controls confirms it persisted across this application restart. Luis, the receiver's retained result includes that counter. It matches the earlier attempt; the newer attempt has no matched result in the records recovered so far.

14
BR
BrunoAdams0104

I've corrected the report: earlier attempt has a matched completion, newer outcome remains unknown. Thanks for pushing for the full capture, Luis. We were close to arguing about the clocks indefinitely.

12
AN
AnnaBaker0503

Will that request counter be included in the standard export now? It would save the next investigation from starting with the same missing column.

25

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: .