From 4af8e65af1043bf2c28fee3b588a2d5f82c057bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joseph Doherty <dohejw01@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 13:40:16 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] fix(redundancy): PeerProbeSupervisor explicitly ignores
 co-mingled OpcUaProbeResult (integration review)

---
 .../ZB.MOM.WW.OtOpcUa.Runtime/Health/PeerProbeSupervisor.cs   | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/src/Server/ZB.MOM.WW.OtOpcUa.Runtime/Health/PeerProbeSupervisor.cs b/src/Server/ZB.MOM.WW.OtOpcUa.Runtime/Health/PeerProbeSupervisor.cs
index 76efaddd..e816c153 100644
--- a/src/Server/ZB.MOM.WW.OtOpcUa.Runtime/Health/PeerProbeSupervisor.cs
+++ b/src/Server/ZB.MOM.WW.OtOpcUa.Runtime/Health/PeerProbeSupervisor.cs
@@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ public sealed class PeerProbeSupervisor : ReceiveActor
         Receive<RedundancyStateChanged>(OnSnapshot);
         Receive<Terminated>(OnTerminated);
         Receive<SubscribeAck>(_ => { });
+        // The redundancy-state topic also carries OpcUaProbeResult (published by our own
+        // PeerOpcUaProbeActor children + peers). The supervisor doesn't consume them — only
+        // OpcUaPublishActor does — so explicitly drop them to avoid unhandled-message noise.
+        Receive<PeerOpcUaProbeActor.OpcUaProbeResult>(_ => { });
     }
 
     /// <summary>Gets the current number of live peer-probe children.</summary>