Our bush-handover notes use ready for two events: request received and loading area available. Neither clearing rule is defined.
FR5 machine interface uses ready for receipt and availability
LucyAbbott0045 · 2026年3月29日 02:37 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
12 条回复
Split the events in the table, with one owner for each value and its clearing condition. Add the request identity so receipt cannot be borrowed from a previous exchange. Process availability must remain distinct from the safety conditions governing access.
19分Both teams accept the separate names. Each still expects the other to clear receipt.
4分Walk one identified request through both programs before implementing anything.
15分Who owns the interface decision when the two teams disagree?
21分Integration lead. They've booked a joint review of the normal and unanswered request cases.
15分Include a late receipt after timeout in that review, so the teams must say what happens to the original request rather than attaching the reply to the next bush handover.
3分And restart while the exchange is unresolved. Clearing everything on startup could make the same request appear new, even with the improved labels.
22分Does the proposed request identity survive that restart?
6分Joint review found it did not. Author is changing persistence; ownership and clearing rules are now agreed on the table.
12分Names fixed, actual restart change still unfinished. Keep both facts in the handover draft
18分Draft does. Operator wording distinguishes waiting for receipt from waiting for process availability. Revised programs have not completed their joint checks.
17分Will the covering operator try those two waiting examples without either author explaining which is coming?
8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： .