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。

the inspection dashboard gains work when it reconnects

HenryBarnes0525 · 2025年3月24日 14:35 UTC

已关闭
HE
HenryBarnes0525
Our UR5e coupon-check dashboard counted a saved result again after reconnect. Its local event detector forgets the previous bit state. I'd like a reconnect test that checks the bookkeeping without clearing PLC evidence or resending jobs

14 条回复

LE
LeoCarter0971

We reproduced that offline by replaying a retained completion into a freshly started monitor. Use the recorded job identity as well as the bit, and compare what was already saved before disconnection. A fresh monitor should not imply fresh work.

10
HE
HenryBarnes0525

The saved row has a job number. The replay makes a second row with the same number, so it's a straightforward duplicate in this case.

13
LE
LeoCarter0971

Add a case where the monitor disconnects before the result is saved. You need that result recorded once after reconnect. Otherwise a fix that suppresses all startup completions can pass your first example and lose genuine work.

5
NA
NathanBrooks0808

Does your job number survive equipment restart without being reused? I don't know your interface, but that would change the comparison.

2
LE
LeoCarter0971

Yes, establish that before treating the number as permanently unique. Our offline records included a run identifier because the local counter restarted. Yours needs a documented identity rule, not necessarily the same implementation.

22
HE
HenryBarnes0525

We have a retained run identifier already, but the monitor drops it when saving results. I'll have that omission reviewed. Existing rows can't all be matched confidently after a counter reset.

18
LE
LeoCarter0971

Keep those older ambiguous rows distinct from the known reconnect duplicate. You can correct the confirmed duplicate with an audit trail without claiming to have reconstructed every historical result.

23
LI
LiamBrooks0838

The instructor display also needs a defined state for unresolved history. A total with an unspoken caveat is likely to be copied into records. Decide who can reconcile it and what evidence they must review.

5
EL
ElliotBell0683

Was the extra row created immediately on connection, or after you pressed anything on the dashboard?

15
LE
LeoCarter0971

That is worth capturing in the reproduction steps. A reconnect event and a manual refresh might share code, but they are different triggers and should not be assumed equivalent.

17
HE
HenryBarnes0525

Immediately on connection, no button pressed. Manual refresh didn't add a row in the captured test. I've recorded the trigger and retained the old results file for comparison.

20
NA
NathanBrooks0808

Have you tested a result saved just before the connection drops? The save and local bookkeeping might finish at different times.

21
HE
HenryBarnes0525

That case duplicates too in the old monitor. The revised offline version keys the saved result by run and job, and both reconnect cases now record it once. Historical uncertainty is still a separate review item.

20
LE
LeoCarter0971

Useful progress. The live acceptance check still needs the agreed interface and display behaviour verified with the controls owner; the offline replay establishes the application response to those supplied records.

5

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: .