After getting a LeakShould I made a number of observations and identified several issues I feel should be fixed so I created the attached document.

It would not let be attach the original .PDF file as it's > 1.05 MB so I created a compressed .PDF and attached it.

Quoted from "Taubenhaucher"

The content of the PDF is from my point of view more a compilation of things that red-ray does not like, not a list of bugs.

None of this has ever affected the functionality of LEAKSHIELD in my computer.

In addition, there is a solution for the lost pump data, it is in the Aquasuite in the option background service the hook in front of "Automatically reset USB connection in case of errors".

Some are clearly bugs, others are poor design decisions or poor implementations that should be improved.

Clearly, I was more rigorous in my evaluation than you were.

I make it clear I was considering the situation when no AC software was running on the host system, given this the background service would not be running at all so your proposed work around is not possible.

Quoted from "Taubenhaucher"

However, this problem cannot be solved in any other way because it is caused by Windows.

This is incorrect, it happens as the LKS 1017 firmware has a 300 second timeout on the "start-up pump data". The firmware should be fixed to optionally remove or extend this timeout. The default should be not to have a timeout, further when/if the AC Service fails or is stopped the firmware should revert to the "start-up pump data"

Quoted from "Taubenhaucher"

The problem and the solution were also extensively discussed here, but if you know better...

Thank you for the history. The issue I highlighted is a different issue which is that when the AC service is not running the pump speed and flow rate can't get sent to the LKS.

There already is the "start-up pump data" and it would be sensible to use this whenever the AC service was not updating the pump speed and/or flow rate.

Quoted from "sebastian"

We also don't have to support your software because you think there are errors.

You don't have to understand or interpret these values. Also these values are not implausible. To understand this, you simply have to understand more about the device and its internal functionality.

I have never asked and never would ask any 2nd/3rd party to support my software. I am confused as to how you can think I have, I have asked AC for information such that it would be easier for me to get SIV to report AC devices, AC declined to provide this as is their right. AC doing this is irksome, but it was easy enough to add LeakShield reporting, much of which I added in the 5.66 release before I had my own LeakShield.

Obviously, Owners don't need to understand the values, but I would like to. I did not specify the values are implausible, but rather that it seems strange that the same device reports very different values at different times and I would like to understand why. If for owners to understand the values they need to know "more about the device and its internal functionality" then clearly the LeakShield manual should include this. Given I did not start the Leakshield Status Diagram - What do all of the values mean? thread it's clear that others would also like to understand the values. The main reason I would like to understand what the values indicate is so I can know how well my LeakShield is working and if it's likely to have problems in the near future.

Your reply is incomplete as it fails to give any indication as to is AC will be fixing the bugs and/or reconsidering the poor design decisions that I identified.

Quoted from "Taubenhaucher"

Without wanting to offend you, do you know a company that, when reporting an error, directly says that the error will be fixed in e.g. 2 weeks?

No, and I did not ask for a timescale. I did show fixing many of the observations was quite easy and I just don't get why they don't fix them.

Anyone who demands anything is not being realistic which is why I used the term "Obversions".

I did not go looking for bugs in AC software/firmware and found most of them while edge case testing the SIV AC hardware reporting. Obviously, I made the SIV code correctly handle the edge cases and assumed AC would wish to do the same, epically so given what is specified in Neu: aquasuite X

In the past I have reported bugs via email and got one-line replies such as "has been forwarded but I would not expect to see any changes." which is contrary to what is said in the above link.

I suspect my attention to correctly dealing with edge cases is down to my background in developing Windows WDM/KMDF Kernel Mode device drivers. These have to correctly deal with all the edge cases as if they don't the result is often a BSOD !

Quoted from "Taubenhaucher"

tapping the software for every conceivable problem would only make it more expensive and development significantly slower.

No, it's not just kernel mode software that need to reliably deal with edge cases, it's any software that is used for safety critical applications. Obvious examples are Nuclear Reactor + Air Traffic control systems and to a much lesser extent Computer Cooling control systems.

Quoted from "Taubenhaucher"

If there are errors, such as the date display on the first entry in the log of LEAKSHIELD, no one really cares, right?

The only reason I mentioned the first entry in the log was for completeness. If this had been the only issue then I suspect I would not have mentioned it, but the other times starting from 2021-05-03 (Sebastian's birthday?) is poor design as is time changes not being in the event log. In addition the state changes should also be logged.

I just rebooted my PC and noticed there is no event in the LeakShield event log to show the USB port had been restarted when I expected there to be one.