<?xml version="1.0"?>
<ArrayOfFBEvent xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-05-24T20:48:24Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Justin Richardson</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-04-06T22:52:32Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Justin Richardson</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-04-06T22:50:58Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Justin Richardson</User>
    <Comment>Verified patch with Datapro 4.1.255 . Tested Using Tdas G5 with double ID  Sensor boards . 
 
Verified that when one id is assigned  to a Sensor in datapro  on a double id sensor board it is recognized in the test setup during read id step correctly. Armed and triggered unit with TDAS G5.
 
Tested  Datapro 4.1.255 with  SPS , slice units and TDAS rack also to be sure they weren't adversely  affected as Dan advised in his notes. Tested per Dans attached notes.
 
 
 
Id list read from  dp log file for double id sensors..
 
 
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 OK 
 2023-04-06 10:05:59.882 &lt;-  TDAS - IDX ALL [00000124]\[00000124] - (7014.1137ms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 OK</Comment>
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-04-06T22:50:28Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Justin Richardson</User>
    <Comment>Verified patch with Datapro 4.1.255 . Tested Using Tdas G5 with double ID  Sensor boards . 
 
Verified that when one id is assigned  to a Sensor in datapro  on a double id sensor board it is recognized in the test setup during read id step correctly. Armed and triggered unit with TDAS G5.
 
Tested  Datapro 4.1.255 with  SPS , slice units and TDAS rack also to be sure they weren't adversely  affected as Dan advised in his notes. Tested per Dans attached notes.
 
 
 
Id list read from  dp log file for double id sensors..
 
 
 
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 OK 
 2023-04-06 10:05:59.882 &lt;-  TDAS - IDX ALL [00000124]\[00000124] - (7014.1137ms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 OK</Comment>
    <StatusString>Closed</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-04-06T22:50:13Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>Closed</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Justin Richardson</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Assigned</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-04-06T15:20:22Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment>pictures didn't upload for some reason?  attached pdf on testing.</Comment>
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-31T19:23:00Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-26T00:11:35Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment>4.1@48139, waiting for close before moving to 4.0</Comment>
    <StatusString>Resolved</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-26T00:11:25Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>Resolved</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment>updated patch</Comment>
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-26T00:07:53Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-25T18:40:55Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment>This issue allows EIDs to be matched from multiple EIDs found on a channel for a G5.
 
To test you'll need a G5 with blades with multiple IDs on the blade, they look like this:
 
 
note that the blade on the left has one channel with only 1 EID instead of 2.
 
You'll want to set up a test with a G5 and sensors with EIDs and arm checklist enabled with SensorID check enabled.  For a faster check you may want to turn off Require all units pass diagnostics, Show realtime, and Check Trigger step
 
for the Sensor EIDs probably the easiest way to set up the EIDs is to run the test with all sensors without IDs first, then open up DataPRO.log after the check sensor ids step.  The log should contain all the EIDs found:
 
 
The channels are separated by spaces, while different ids on a channel are separated by commas.  I would then use this to copy and paste ids into sensor EID field in the sensor database:
 
 
for the ordinary use case you'll want to intersperse your EID selections from the first EID on a channel and the second EID on a channel.  The point here is to exercise as much as possible that the sensor id when checking ids only needs to match one or the other EID on the channel, so the effort is just to make sure we aren't always using the first.
 
run the test.  Prior to the patch the check sensor ID step should fail as any EID not on the first of the two EIDs won't be matched.
 
 
it should be able to find a sensor EID whether you have the channel also physically assigned or not.  If a channel was not physically assigned, it should still find the sensor and put it on that physical channel.
 
In ArmCheckList prior to the patch the sensor id check should fail whatever sensors were not found on the first of the two EIDs.  After the patch arm checklist should patch by matching either of the two EIDs.
 
 
collected data should not be affected.
 
other things that need to be tested:
 
different G5 firmware versions, probably need to make sure the current release version is tested as well as maybe the previous two?
 
TDAS rack needs to be tested (just to make sure it still functions and isn't adversely affected)
 
SLICE also needs to be tested (just to make sure it still functions and isn't adversely affected).
 
in the patch a new command is added (RackIDX) which calls the IDX command as a rack command.
 
ArmCheckResults for SensorIds goes from a single string to an array of string to hold multiple ids.
 
TDAS dasfactory code now either calls the old code or the new RackIDX command.  I abstracted the functions out for better readability.  I also abstracted the "0000...0" checking code that was done in multiple places to a single function.</Comment>
    <StatusString>Assigned</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-25T18:40:00Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment>from RW, this command is available on G5 to get all channel ids at once;
 
 
 
12-17-2008 10:51:45 5M0172|1000IDX ALL  &amp; 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  OK &amp; 5.221001</Comment>
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-25T15:24:20Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Assigned</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-25T15:23:33Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Assigned</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-17T21:56:19Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-17T21:51:32Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Assigned</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2023-01-03T19:09:36Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2022-12-13T17:03:52Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2022-11-29T22:06:35Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Assigned</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2022-11-29T16:44:18Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2022-11-29T16:23:01Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2022-11-15T22:47:24Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2022-11-15T21:27:33Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Edited</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2022-11-10T15:27:06Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment />
    <StatusString>Assigned</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2022-11-10T15:26:43Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>UNKNOWN</Status>
  </FBEvent>
  <FBEvent>
    <User>Dan McFadden</User>
    <Comment>I think something like this is needed?
  
 
 
Poll for all EIDs [using 0AUX ID command] in addition to existing id command, store all ids on a hardware channel on that hardware channel
 
sensors are unchanged, contain only 1 EID
 
in Resolve Channels/Check Sensors, should display both ids when neither id is in test for a given channel (extra ids)
 
In resolve channels first matching EID to a sensor in the test should determine the match, ignore second id if both ids match (this is done by order of channels in test)
 
ArmCheckList - display matching ids for sensor ids if sensor id matches as in resolve channels above, don't display second id, just the matching id and sensor
 
In hardware discovery - should display both ids if neither id is in sensor db, should display the sensor with the first matching id if either id matches for a channel
 
 
 
 
spend some time to design and create or design tests ...
 
has to be implemented in 4.1, then backported to 4.0 when validated.
 
 
 
 
 
##- Please type your reply above this line -##
 
You are registered as a CC on this support request (dtsweb.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/10847).
 Reply to this email to add a comment to the request.
 
 
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Nov 10, 2022, 08:58 CST
    Private note    
Hi Dan,
  
 I think I misunderstood--Were we waiting to schedule the work for my approval? What you described matches expected behavior. Do you have an estimate for when this could be complete?
  
 Thank you very much!
 
 
         
 
          
Tory Showek
 
Nov 9, 2022, 07:34 CST
 
 
Adding the iWall errors discussion material to this ticket since I'm having trouble sending the files via email.
 
I've included a couple data folders, our sifs, and screenshots of the errors we see when we try to discover iWall. The progression is L-R, top-bottom.
 
Tory 
 
 
 
 
Attachment(s)
 SensorCheckout.zip
 LC Test.zip
 Plate info and sifs.zip
 Plate errors.xlsx
         
 
          
Dan McFadden (DTS)
 
Oct 20, 2022, 11:17 CDT
    Private note    
I think something like this is needed?
   
 
Poll for all EIDs [using 0AUX ID command] in addition to existing id command, store all ids on a hardware channel on that hardware channel
 
sensors are unchanged, contain only 1 EID
 
in Resolve Channels/Check Sensors, should display both ids when neither id is in test for a given channel (extra ids)
 
In resolve channels first matching EID to a sensor in the test should determine the match, ignore second id if both ids match (this is done by order of channels in test)
 
ArmCheckList - display matching ids for sensor ids if sensor id matches as in resolve channels above, don't display second id, just the matching id and sensor
 
In hardware discovery - should display both ids if neither id is in sensor db, should display the sensor with the first matching id if either id matches for a channel
 
  
 does this match what you are expecting?
  
 
 
         
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Oct 20, 2022, 10:14 CDT
    Private note    
Dan McFadden - could we get the multiple EID work scheduled into DataPRO? Is the note from oct 11 sufficient?
  
  
  
  
 
 
         
 
          
Tory Showek
 
Oct 14, 2022, 06:54 CDT
 
 
Nate,
 
Here's the Run Test folder for our recent commissioning test.
 
The two issues were 3 dummy channels that were manually assigned, still showed assign errors during sensor checkout. Sensors were removed and re-assigned, but the problem persisted. Did not prevent the test from running. I can try to get screen shots if needed.
 
Second was the trigger check of 2 i-dummy G5's laggy or no response to trigger input. Vehicle G5 and one dummy G5 showed "Triggered" and the other two showed "Waiting for trigger"(?)
 
Also did not impede the test. No screenshots exist for this.
 
Thanks!
 
Tory
 
 
 
 
Attachment(s)
 Run Test_Corolla DP Commission.zip
         
 
          
Tory Showek
 
Oct 11, 2022, 10:23 CDT
 
 
Nate,
 
Here’s the log files and data for the data filtering question from last week's meeting. The original “as-exported” data is in the vehicle folder. “Data for DTS” is plotted unfiltered and CFC1000 data only, both directly from Manager only run through our header macro(no post process filtering). Let me know if you need anything else.
 
Tory
 
 
 
 
Attachment(s)
 YSC22-016 VEHICLE.zip
 Data_For_DTS.zip
         
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Oct 11, 2022, 09:55 CDT
    Private note    
Original report from IIHS:
 https://dtsweb.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/4697
  
 TEMA uses double EIDs per channel at their iWall and small offset barrier.
  
 On each channel, one EID represents the sensor and one EID is in an extension cable and represents the location.
  
 Instead of developing an EID-&gt;Location solution, Toyota is embracing using Groups to define location and letting an EID represent the sensor.
  
 Currently, G5s only report back one EID -- presumably whichever responds first in the onewire poll. This is great if the sensor EID responds first. If the location EID reports back first, then it shows as unknown.
  
 Some proposals:
   
 
Poll for all EIDs, and if multiple exist per channel we check against the sensor db. If we have a match, pass on only that EID. TBD work out logic for double EID.
 
Remove hardware EIDs from cables. 
 
This is a heavy lift for the Toyota iwall and even more work for IIHS
 
 
 
Hacky workaround - create 2x sensor entries per load cell, one for each possible EID on the line 
 
This is super hacy and will be a big maintenance task when sensors are calibrated or moved
 
 
 
  
 Any other thoughts?
 
 
         
 
          
Chris Balogh (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 15:22 CDT
    Private note    
TDM source (if you're interested):
 http://build:8080/svn/Software/Views/TDAS.Manager/branches/TDMSlice
  
 I am opening in MSVC++ on Salsa, but you may still be able to open in VS19 or just poke around in np++
 
 
         
 
          
Dan McFadden (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 15:17 CDT
    Private note    
that looks like it, we DO have an implementation of 0AUX ID in DP, (which was probably from TDC code);
  
     public class AUXIDCommandString : CommandString
  
 we haven't tested it, and then we'd need some help with the how TEMA operates with it as well I guess.
  
 
 
         
 
          
Chris Balogh (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 15:14 CDT
    Private note    
 
 
         
 
          
Chris Balogh (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 15:14 CDT
    Private note    
 
 
         
 
          
Chris Balogh (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 15:13 CDT
    Private note    
 
 
         
 
          
Chris Balogh (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 15:12 CDT
    Private note    
I'm starting to pull apart the TDM code now.
 
 
         
 
          
Dan McFadden (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 13:20 CDT
    Private note    
Chris Balogh
 chris, if you have some TDC source around want to check for wall or cable id code?
 
 
         
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 13:11 CDT
    Private note    
More context, I'm pretty sure IIHS is using double-EIDs correctly where DP ignores any EIDs that aren't found in the sensor db. I'm not able to find any examples of IIHS DP logs, however...
 
 
         
 
          
Jared Vogt
 
Sep 29, 2022, 12:49 CDT
 
 
•• PROTECTED 関係者外秘
 
 
 
Attached is the TDAS Manager files from a full wall test. I left out the CSV and bin files,
 
 
Attachment(s)
 FC22-005 Barrier 2 ID logs.zip
         
 
          
Dan McFadden (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 10:17 CDT
    Private note    
could it just be splitting the existing EID into multiple parts?  seems unusual that all the EIDs would end with the same 2 bytes, suggest quickly going through TDC source chris?
 
 
         
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 10:00 CDT
    Private note    
Dan McFadden I'm not seeing the multiple EID syntax in either the DataPRO or TDAS comm log.
  
 Going to ask for TDM logs for comparison shortly. Any thoughts about what could be going on? TDAS comm log is unfiltered by datapro, right?
 
 
         
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 09:50 CDT
    Private note    
2022_08_24 10_42 has logs with EID reading.
 
 
         
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 09:41 CDT
 
Thank you for all the work to get the files across, Jared!
  
 Downloading now.
 
 
         
 
          
Jared Vogt
 
Sep 29, 2022, 09:30 CDT
 
 
•• PROTECTED 関係者外秘
 
 
 
Should the file that ends in “38”
 
         
 
          
Jared Vogt
 
Sep 29, 2022, 09:29 CDT
 
 
•• PROTECTED 関係者外秘
 
 
Attachment(s)
 2022_08_25 08_38.zip
         
 
          
Jared Vogt
 
Sep 29, 2022, 09:29 CDT
 
 
•• PROTECTED 関係者外秘
 
 
Attachment(s)
 2022_08_25 08_26.zip
         
 
          
Jared Vogt
 
Sep 29, 2022, 09:28 CDT
 
 
•• PROTECTED 関係者外秘
 
 
Attachment(s)
 2022_08_24 10_42.zip
         
 
          
Jared Vogt
 
Sep 29, 2022, 09:28 CDT
 
 
•• PROTECTED 関係者外秘
 
 
Attachment(s)
 2022_08_25 08_07.zip
         
 
          
Jared Vogt
 
Sep 29, 2022, 09:28 CDT
 
 
•• PROTECTED 関係者外秘
 
 
Attachment(s)
 2022_08_25 07_48.zip
         
 
          
Jared Vogt
 
Sep 29, 2022, 09:28 CDT
 
 
•• PROTECTED 関係者外秘
 
 
Attachment(s)
 2022_08_25 07_17.zip
         
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Sep 29, 2022, 08:34 CDT
 
Hi Jared,
  
 Thanks for the folder. Looks like that test run only has a reports subfolder. Perhaps it was an aborted attempt? May be easier to zip the whole test setup folder one level up from there:
 c:\dts\dts.suite\data\DP Commission Barrier
  
 We need to look at the logs folder from that test. Talk soon!
 
 
         
 
          
Jared Vogt
 
Sep 27, 2022, 09:12 CDT
 
 
•• PROTECTED 関係者外秘
 
 
 
Let me know if this works for you or you need some other file. Thanks!
 
 
Attachment(s)
 2022_08_25 08_38.zip
         
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Sep 27, 2022, 08:40 CDT
    Private note    
Do we use a different fw command to ask for multiple EIDs per channel? I only see 8x EIDs here. From Toyota's feedback, these G5s should be iWall channels with 1xEID for the position locator cable and 1xEID for the sensor attached at the end.
  
 For instance: 

2022-08-25 08:43:58.932 &lt;-  TDAS - Read Sensor ID [00000140]\[00000140] - (1750.6404ms), 5M0238 SENSOR ID F8000000527A292D BD0000005272102D C5000000527B6E2D 4D0000009346912D EA00000074CA262D 2900000093556E2D 2B00000093557D2D EC0000005281CC2D OK
  
 I'll see if we can get a TDAS Manager log for comparison
 
 
         
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Sep 27, 2022, 08:33 CDT
 
Hey Jared,
  
 Do you still have access to the run folder for this test?
  
 I'd expect it to be on the barrier PC here:
  
 c:\dts\dts.suite\Data\DP Commission Barrier\2022_08_25 08_38\
  
 Could you zip up the above datetime folder and attach to this ticket?
  
 Thanks so much, talk soon!
 
 
         
 
          
Nathan Brown (DTS)
 
Sep 1, 2022, 12:40 CDT
 
TEMA is using DataPRO with their iWall which was designed with one EID per sensor and one in each jumper cable. The cable EID is used in TDAS Manager to automatically sense the position of the load cell in the wall matrix.
  
 We're moving toward using Groups to manage the wall load cell positions but in TEMA's initial testing, they were not able to find many of the sensors.
  
 Attached is the log provided from that test.
  
 Jared, when you have a moment could you zip and attach the Test Run folder from this test? it should be in c:\dts\dts.suite\data\{TestSetup}\{TestRun}
  
 That folder will include the Test Setup, Diagnostics Reports, etc.
  
 Thanks again. Talk soon!
 
 
 
Attachment(s)
 DataPRO(3).log
         
 
 
You are an agent. Add a comment by replying to this email or view ticket in Zendesk Support.
    Ticket # 10847   Status Open   Requester Jared Vogt   CCs Chad J Ivan, Dan McFadden, Chris Balogh, Tory Showek, Doug Nelson   Group Support   Assignee Nathan Brown   Priority Normal   Type Problem   Channel Web Form    
 
 This email is a service from DTS. Delivered by Zendesk.
 
 [6LQWDX-5YQLQ]Ticket-Id:10847Account-Subdomain:dtsweb</Comment>
    <StatusString>Opened</StatusString>
    <TimeStamp>2022-11-10T15:26:43Z</TimeStamp>
    <ZendeskNumber>0</ZendeskNumber>
    <Status>Opened</Status>
  </FBEvent>
</ArrayOfFBEvent>