Working with issues
Proving a repair
A repair is claimed by a person and proven by the robot.
trialone verify measures a new recording against an earlier diagnosis and rules per finding. The rule is blunt on purpose: a partial improvement is the most expensive answer a diagnostic tool can give, because it sends a machine back to work with the fault still in it.
$ trialone diagnose ./before.mcap --json$ trialone verify <diagnosis.json> ./after-repair.mcap
| Per finding | Means |
|---|---|
| GONE | The finding is absent from the new recording. |
| STILL | The same finding is present again. A lower peak is still the same finding. |
| NEW | A finding the earlier diagnosis did not have. |
The verdict is pass (exit code 0), fail (1) or inconclusive (2). A new candidate that is not certain makes the verdict inconclusive, never a pass.
Measure both the same way
Use the same --healthy reference and the same --max-false-alarm rate you diagnosed with. Otherwise a finding can appear or vanish because the bar moved, not because the machine changed.
Crashes
A crash does not repeat inside one log. Pass a folder with the logs of several runs of the scenario that triggered it, one log per run; each counts as one repetition.
From the website
On an issue, Verify on a machine queues a job for its watcher. The watcher takes the newest recording made after the repair was claimed, never one from before, and posts the verdict next to the diagnosis. Without a new recording there is no verdict, only a sentence that says what is missing.
Something missing or wrong here? Tell us.