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。

Our monitor counts a retained PLC signal twice (Fairino FR10)

RaviBell0650 · 2026年5月12日 20:12 UTC

回复讨论
RA
RaviBell0650
Our application sometimes counts an old completion again when it reconnects. The PLC signal was already high before the connection dropped. This tracks part acceptance reporting for Fairino FR10 in a workshop cell with retained job registers, using a reference plate. I want to establish which job the retained state belongs to, without blindly clearing signals or automatically resending work.

12 条回复

AN
AnnaCarter1025

Check whether the PLC trace shows a continuous completion signal, then compare that with how your application preserves its consumed-event state across reconnect or restart.

20
RA
RaviBell0650

It stays high. Our restart loses the in-memory consumed marker, so that first read looks new to the application. Annoyingly simple once it's visible.

10
AN
AnnaCarter1025

@RaviBell0650 Use an offline reconnect replay with persistent job state and match the retained completion before applying it. Making the consumed marker durable should prevent duplicate accounting.

10
AN
AnilBaker0462

A durable marker needs job identity; persisting a generic consumed flag could suppress a different completion rather than correctly deduplicating this one

14
AN
AnnaCarter1025

@AnilBaker0462 You're right about the missing identity condition. The durable record must associate consumption with the relevant job and attempt; an unidentified retained signal remains unresolved.

18
RA
RaviBell0650

@AnnaCarter1025 Should reconnect have a reconciliation state before normal monitoring resumes? Otherwise our first sample looks just like any other update.

20
AN
AnnaCarter1025

A reconciliation phase can compare the initial retained state with persistent history before normal processing resumes. Connection recovery alone doesn't establish a new job result.

5
LI
LiamChen1186

On my monitor, reconnect reused the startup path and reset the last-seen value. Edge detection then invented an edge nobody had observed

17
CH
ChenAli0181

@LiamChen1186 Would ignoring the first high value fix that? It feels tempting, which probably means I'm missing something.

20
AN
AnnaCarter1025

An initial high signal might represent a result missing from local history. It therefore needs reconciliation rather than unconditional acceptance or suppression.

9
RA
RaviBell0650

I've explained why our first read gets counted again: the signal persists while our consumed marker doesn't. I'll close the fix only when identity-based reconciliation survives the offline reconnect and restart cases.

15
AN
AnnaCarter1025

Your closure fits the observed mechanism, while the reconciliation result stays conditional on the required checks.

18

参与讨论

欢迎来到 Application Robot

所有人都可以阅读论坛。登录或注册后即可发起讨论、回复或上传照片。

忘记密码?

注册账号即表示你同意我们的 使用条款 社区准则。请阅读我们的 隐私政策 ,了解我们如何处理你的信息。