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。
HenryBarnes0525 · 2026年3月30日 14:51 UTC
Does Python retain the original request elsewhere, before the summary export dropped that field? A raw journal or saved outgoing request might let you recover the relationship without aligning the clocks.
6分Found a raw request journal. It includes a session identity and the PLC sequence in each outgoing request; the export kept only the friendly name.
9分Does that session identity change after the restart, or can the same sequence appear in both sessions? I'd want the scope of the number nailed down before calling it a match.
16分Session changed. PLC retained the same session reference with its receipt, so the pair matches the earlier request. New attempt has a different pair despite the reused name.
14分What does the matched event confirm: receipt of the request or the inspection result? The operator wording should not turn a successful match into more than the event contains.
21分Receipt only. Earlier inspection outcome remains unknown. Quality has the coupon held, and the new attempt hasn't inherited that acknowledgement.
17分Maintainer corrected the export to retain the session/sequence pair and repeated the two-session example. We can now assign this receipt without pretending the old timestamps line up. Result still missing.
23分That's a useful recovery from the raw record. Does the routine handover export now include the same fields, or only the diagnostic copy you tested?
23分