Our planned bush-loading interface calls receipt of a request ready, while the integrator reads ready as the loading area being available. Both teams have signed different notes. I want one agreed sequence, not a third reassuring label.
Which ready definition belongs in our UR5e lathe interface?
JonasChen1155 · 2026年4月9日 02:49 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
8 条回复
Put the two meanings on separate lines and have both authors identify their source, conditions and ownership. A signature on contradictory wording hasn't settled the interface.
22分Machine author confirms receipt can occur while the loading area remains unavailable; integrator had treated that receipt as permission to advance the planned sequence.
14分Ask them to walk through exactly that waiting case together. It should be possible to show request received and area unavailable without somebody calling it a fault or clearing the request to get unstuck.
7分Agreed, and keep the required safeguarding separate from these ordinary handshake definitions. Renaming ready doesn't establish the conditions for access.
2分Jonas, who is writing the covering operator's view of that wait? Two technically distinct states can still end up under one unhelpful screen message.
20分Integrator owns the operator display, and both authors have agreed separate receipt and availability definitions with explicit clearing ownership.
5分The paper walkthrough now preserves a received request while availability is absent; restart during that wait remains unresolved, so the interface draft is not signed off.
17分That's the question to leave on the next review. Which state survives, how it is identified, and who reconciles it before the sequence resumes.
24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： .