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。

our request vanishes before the inspection application sees it

OwenAli0225 · 2026年1月5日 19:01 UTC

已关闭
OW
OwenAli0225
The PLC author calls a brief pulse an inspection request. Our FR10 application sometimes polls after it has gone. Their proposed fix is a longer pulse, but neither side can show who owns acknowledgement or when it clears. What should I put in front of both authors so we stop arguing about pulse length? This is the ordinary job interface, separate from the cell safety functions.

10 条回复

RA
RaviAli0215

Draw one request through sending, acceptance and clearing with both authors. Put the owner beside every change, including what the receiver does if it sees the same request again.

3
OW
OwenAli0225

We did that with their current notes. PLC assumes acknowledgement means inspection finished. Application author means request received. That is rather more than a pulse-length problem.

23
JU
JuliaBaker0500

Sort the operator wording at the same time. If received appears as complete on the screen, someone will move on while the inspection hasn't happened. What does your screen actually say now?

11
DA
DanielBrown0913

Keep the inspection result separate too. Finished doesn't tell quality whether the housing passed, failed or has no usable result. I'd bring one example of each to that meeting.

7
RA
RaviAli0215

Julia, the wording matters, but I would settle what the events mean before naming buttons around them. Otherwise the screen team gets to make the missing interface decisions by accident.

4
OW
OwenAli0225

Julia, it says complete on acceptance. Daniel, the result is on a separate page, but nothing on the main screen tells the operator it may still be pending. I have attached both views to the joint review.

13
JU
JuliaBaker0500

Ravi, agreed on who decides. I want the operator looking at their examples before those decisions are signed off, not discovering the confusing bit after the screen's built.

9
DA
DanielBrown0913

Did the review include the application restarting after acceptance? That's where I'd be nervous about a second inspection getting requested because the first result wasn't saved.

14
OW
OwenAli0225

Yes, Daniel. Restart and a delayed receiver are on the same worksheet. No implementation approved yet. The authors have agreed separate acceptance and result events; they still need to settle the unknown-outcome case and show it on the operator view.

15
RA
RaviAli0215

Keep that unknown case in the tests when the design is ready. A longer request by itself was never going to answer it.

10

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: .