Fairino FR5: Rebuilding the environment for SDK response inspection

HazelChen1180 · 2026年7月25日 05:15 UTC

回复讨论

主帖中文翻译暂不可用,以下显示英文原文;回复保留原文。 查看英文原文

HA
HazelChen1180
I rebuilt our laptop, and the read-only script for SDK response inspection on Fairino FR5 now rejects an argument before contacting the controller. The old laptop still runs the same script. I've found several SDK folders, but no record of which copy it uses. Our setup is in a training cell with a documented read-only test, with a fixture plate as the reference item.

20 条回复

BR
BrunoAllen0278

Which module path does the script's own interpreter load on each laptop? I'd start there; the names on the SDK folders don't tell you what's running.

17分
HA
HazelChen1180

Different paths. Our vendor folder on the old laptop, an installed package on the rebuild. I'd compared everything except the imports, apparently.

16分
BR
BrunoAllen0278

Preserve your working copy and compare the two function signatures. Recreating it in an isolated environment should answer the laptop part of the problem.

20分
CA
CallumAbbott0012

@BrunoAllen0278 Does recreating that copy really settle the laptop side? It could fix the signature mismatch while leaving a different launcher or dependency problem.

1分
BR
BrunoAllen0278

@CallumAbbott0012 You're right; I overstated it. Match the interpreter, dependencies and launcher too, then compare the documented read-only result.

20分
HA
HazelChen1180

@BrunoAllen0278 Found it: the rejected argument has a different signature. Both copies are intact, and our working laptop is untouched.

18分
IM
ImranAdams0131

@HazelChen1180 My first instinct would've been to change that argument. Why not just match the installed package's signature?

15分
BR
BrunoAllen0278

It could remove the local error. You'd still need matching SDK documentation and confirmation of the controller pairing; accepting the arguments doesn't establish the rest of the behaviour.

12分
JA
JamieChan1078

@BrunoAllen0278 I had a terminal pointing at one environment and a shortcut at another on my setup. My triumphant fix covered exactly one way of launching it.

22分
HA
HazelChen1180

@JamieChan1078 Checked our launcher too. Same installed-package path as the terminal.

13分
IM
ImranAdams0131

@BrunoAllen0278 Are the controller and SDK meant to have matching version numbers? I don't know whether those numbers belong to the same scheme.

5分
BR
BrunoAllen0278

Treat them as separate identifiers unless the documentation says otherwise. Look for a stated pairing, or send both identifiers to support for confirmation.

6分
HA
HazelChen1180

@BrunoAllen0278 Our maintenance record matches the controller screen. Still no identifiable release archive for that vendor folder, though.

9分
JA
JamieChan1078

@HazelChen1180 Checksums help compare copies. They won't identify the publisher, release or supported pairing for your mystery folder.

12分
CA
CallumAbbott0012

Any local edits? They could prevent an archive checksum match.

8分
HA
HazelChen1180

@CallumAbbott0012 Can't tell; there's no history. I'm leaving its origin unknown rather than giving our mystery folder a guessed release name.

17分
BR
BrunoAllen0278

Your identifiers, signature comparison and sanitized traceback should make a useful support request. Describe the vendor folder as untraced so they don't mistake it for a known release.

25分
IM
ImranAdams0131

Once you know which copy it's, is a dependency list enough to make the next rebuild less painful?

6分
JA
JamieChan1078

Add SDK source, interpreter, launch instructions and controller ID. Keep a sanitized read-only result too, so you've got a baseline.

22分
HA
HazelChen1180

Our known paths and IDs are in the note. SDK origin stays blank. A tidy guess would make rebuilding harder.

18分

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 和 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。