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。

Request sent isn't the same as request seen (part inspection)

AmaraChan1122 · 2026年5月19日 09:06 UTC

回复讨论
AM
AmaraChan1122
I'm reviewing our non-safety job handshake for part inspection with Universal Robots UR5e in a PLC-coordinated fixture inspection cell, using a reference plate. The PLC sends a brief request, and our application sometimes misses it. I can't find anything clear about who owns each signal or when it gets cleared. Safety functions are independently engineered; this is the ordinary job interface.

7 条回复

NO
NoraAllen0322

Does your trace show when the PLC request is raised and cleared relative to application polls, including which side performs the clearing?

0
AM
AmaraChan1122

Our trace shows it rising and falling between two polls. The PLC clears it without an observed acknowledgement. No wonder the application misses it.

7
NO
NoraAllen0322

Take an ownership table and a retained-request proposal to the interface owner. A request held until matching acknowledgement should settle the handshake in an offline review.

15
NO
NoahArcher0368

@NoraAllen0322 Holding the request addresses the missed pulse, but it doesn't settle the interface. A retained request needs identity and restart rules to avoid being mistaken for new work.

5
NO
NoraAllen0322

@NoahArcher0368 Yes, I overstated that. Retention addresses the missed pulse. The offline review also needs matching identity, reset ownership and restart cases before the design is complete.

17
AM
AmaraChan1122

@NoraAllen0322 The missed-request diagnosis is settled for this trace. Completing the handshake fix still depends on the interface owner's assessment of signal ownership and the offline transition cases.

6
NO
NoraAllen0322

That diagnosis fits the trace, and you've kept the implementation claim dependent on the interface review.

17

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。