Background process records keep a second start timestamp so a recycled process id is spotted.
What's wrong with this entry?
Records for background and daemon processes can carry a second start timestamp alongside the existing one, with the platform deciding which is used to confirm a process is still the one that was recorded.
procStartFt
Strings lifted out of the shipped bundle, so the claim above can be checked against them.
Related
Other releases about the same thing. Found by shared names or similar wording; neither means one caused the other.
-
v2.1.234
Background task notifications arrive inside a system-reminder
Both mention background task
-
v2.1.235
Several finished background tasks now report as one line
Both mention background task
-
v2.1.236
Background-task notices no longer look like user approval
Both mention background task