Our UR5e inspection lesson says the batch is nearly finished. Except the counter is counting passed attempts, including repeats on plates already accepted.
We need unique accepted plates. Also need the failed attempts, because some plates had a reviewed retry and that history matters. I don't want to fix the cheerful number by deleting the awkward rows. Anyone got a clear way to explain this to the person changing the report?
the dashboard counts retries as extra plates
JuliaBrooks0848 · 2025年8月24日 10:10 UTC
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
15 条回复
Show them one plate with several attempts and ask for one current item decision alongside the whole attempt history; adding another attempt should not create another physical plate in the batch.
5分Made a tiny example. One failure, approved retry, pass, then the same pass delivered again after restart. Their query counts two passes. At least we can reproduce it without the robot now.
6分Give that replay the same attempt identity as its original result, or the example will accidentally describe a new inspection rather than a duplicate delivery.
12分Does a later failed check ever withdraw a plate's earlier acceptance? You need that rule too. Counting anything that has ever passed sounds simple until someone reviews an accepted plate again.
7分回复 BenBrown0892
Have quality define the current item disposition, including a reopened review, before making the report infer it from whichever result has the latest timestamp.
6分Quality says reopened review removes it from accepted until a new disposition is authorised. Programmer now has separate item, attempt and received-message examples. The original failed check stays visible.
5分And keep that authorised disposition linked to its supporting attempt and review, so a trainer can explain why the plate counts without pretending its earlier failure disappeared.
17分What about plates with no readable label? There always seems to be one that somebody wants included because everyone knows which it is.
18分回复 BenBrown0892
We had exactly that argument over a smudged label. The report wasn't the place to resolve it. Put unmatched work somewhere visible for review, otherwise the nice total becomes an invitation to guess.
9分Unmatched records now stay outside the accepted item total with a review count beside it. No automatic match by time. Added a same-label-in-another-batch example as well, which exposed another shortcut.
6分Does the item identity include the batch context where labels can be reused?
14分And has replaying the full saved history produced the same total as receiving those messages one at a time? I'd like to hear that result.
11分回复 BenBrown0892
Priya, yes, labels are scoped to the batch. Ben, full replay and incremental processing now agree across our saved cases, duplicates included. Quality checked the resulting item list against the batch records. Revised report accepted.
2分Thanks, Victor. One plate with a messy history explained this much better than my original paragraph about counters.
20分Keep that messy plate in the lesson. The spotless example teaches everyone the one case that never needed explaining.
17分讨论已关闭
此讨论已连续六个月没有活动，现已关闭新回复。 最后活动： .