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 old bracket result wins if I release it last

JaneAdams0162 · 2026年1月27日 22:26 UTC

已关闭
JA
JaneAdams0162
Our FR10 inspection replay gives different answers from the same two bracket results. Whichever callback arrives last colours the current attempt. Need a repeatable way to hold one back; sleep timings are wasting the afternoon

18 条回复

AI
AishaBell0692

We had a restart fault that vanished whenever somebody watched it. A small queue in the test let us release each saved event by hand. Much easier to hand over than a suggested delay that only worked on my laptop.

5
JA
JaneAdams0162

Does your queue sit before the real handler? Mine currently bypasses it, which may be why the test looks better than the application

7
AI
AishaBell0692

Before it. We replaced the source of the events, not the code deciding what they meant.

23
AL
AlexCell

What actually ties either result to its attempt, Jane? Holding them back won't help if the handler only gets a bracket name.

9
PR
PriyaBrown0916
回复 AlexCell

Alex, yes, and don't have the test quietly supply an identity the real message lacks. In an inherited application I supported, the fake had a lovely unique number which disappeared at the production boundary. We spent a meeting admiring a solution to a different interface. Jane, save the actual fields before building the queue. You can then say whether the failure is in matching a known attempt or in trying to match something the application cannot identify. Those lead to rather different changes

13
JA
JaneAdams0162
回复 AlexCell

Real messages have a saved attempt reference. The handler ignores it when updating the big result tile. The history rows are attached correctly. Alex, it's worse than the bracket-name guess in a particularly boring way

15
AL
AlexCell

So does the tile alone change, or does anything consuming that tile also mark the job done?

18
JU
JuliaAllen0326

Can you assert the history row, current tile and completion count independently in the same replay? A screenshot would miss a count changing behind a correctly labelled tile.

19
JA
JaneAdams0162

Tile and count both change. Added Julia's three assertions to the queued replay; old-after-new fails two of them every run now

16
PR
PriyaBrown0916

Reproducibly bad is progress here.

4
AI
AishaBell0692

Who owns the tile and count updates? Our two displays once had separate little fixes, then somebody combined them and brought the fault back.

13
JA
JaneAdams0162

Same maintainer, separate callbacks. They're moving both onto the saved attempt state. I asked for the old ordering test to stay, not be rewritten to suit the fix

10
JU
JuliaAllen0326

Include two deliveries of the current result as well. Correct ownership alone does not stop a repeated completion increasing its count twice.

16
JA
JaneAdams0162

That caught another one. Current result was counted on each callback. Count now comes from completed attempts; duplicate-current and duplicate-old both pass

22
PR
PriyaBrown0916

Has the correction survived closing and reopening the application, Jane? The saved rows were right already, so that boundary is worth keeping in the comparison

10
AL
AlexCell

And reopen with an attempt still unfinished, not just a tidy table full of completed brackets.

7
JA
JaneAdams0162

Both reopen cases pass. Installed replay through the application boundary also keeps the old result on its own row, current tile pending, count unchanged. Thanks, Aisha, the queue made this demonstrable rather than temperamental

10
AI
AishaBell0692

Good. Put the saved event pair with the test name in the handover; the next maintainer can rerun the actual failure instead of trying to recreate your afternoon.

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: .