Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

new protocol TCM 218943 #696

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 21, 2019
Merged

Conversation

elektron-bbs
Copy link
Contributor

@elektron-bbs elektron-bbs commented Nov 20, 2019

  • Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
  • Tests for the changes have been added / modified (needed for for bug fixes / features)
  • commandref has been added / updated (needed for bug fixes / features)
  • CHANGED has been updated (needed for bug fixes / features)
  • What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
    Feature

  • What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
    no evaluation, see new Sensor TCM218943 #692

  • What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
    new protocol for weather station TCM 218943 replaces protocol 6 (Eurochron was under development)

  • Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)
    no

  • Other information:

Definition protocol for weather station TCM 218943 replaces protocol 6
(Eurochron was under development). Protocol 6 removed from file
90_SIGNALduino_un.pm.
Evaluation protocol 15 removed from file 90_SIGNALduino_un.pm. Protocol
15 has been processed for some time in module SD_BELL.
Copy link
Contributor

@HomeAutoUser HomeAutoUser left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@elektron-bbs elektron-bbs requested a review from sidey79 November 20, 2019 11:38
@elektron-bbs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ich weiß nicht, ob das schon sinnvoll ist.
Zum einen ist das TCM-Modul noch nicht fertig und zum anderen erhält man erst korrekte Werte, nachdem im Attribut das passende model ausgewählt wurde.

@sidey79
Copy link
Contributor

sidey79 commented Nov 20, 2019

Doch kann man machen. Der Test gegen pre-release läuft ohne einen Fehler zu produzieren und RMSG/DMSG ist vom TCM Modul unabhängig.

Copy link
Contributor

@sidey79 sidey79 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Warten auf Erweiterung der JSON Datei

@elektron-bbs
Copy link
Contributor Author

Was soll ich dann dort für Werte eintragen?

  1. Werte vom aktuellen TCM-Modul
  2. Werte von Ralfs Modul ohne passend gesetztes Attribut
  3. Werte von Ralfs Modul mit passend gesetztem Attribut
  4. gar keine Werte :-)

@sidey79
Copy link
Contributor

sidey79 commented Nov 20, 2019

Ich hattw an dmsg Wert und die Anzahl an wiederholen gedacht

@elektron-bbs
Copy link
Contributor Author

DMSG ist klar, die Anzahl der Wiederholungen nicht.
Da es MS ist, gibt es keine Wiederholungen in den RAW-MSGs.

@sidey79
Copy link
Contributor

sidey79 commented Nov 20, 2019

DMSG ist klar, die Anzahl der Wiederholungen nicht.
Da es MS ist, gibt es keine Wiederholungen in den RAW-MSGs.

Dann ist der Wert 1 vermutlich der richtige

@sidey79
Copy link
Contributor

sidey79 commented Nov 21, 2019

Aus meiner Sicht passt das Ergebnis :

    # Subtest: [12]: AURIOL_174: [0] 
        ok 1 - SIGNALduno_Dispatch check id 
        ok 2 - SIGNALduno_Dispatch check dmsg 
        1..2
    ok 15 - [12]: AURIOL_174: [0]  # TODO Checking with prerelease Version of SD_Device_ProtocolList which can fail
    # Subtest: [12]: AURIOL_174: [1] 
        ok 1 - SIGNALduno_Dispatch check id 
        ok 2 - SIGNALduno_Dispatch check dmsg 
        1..2
    ok 16 - [12]: AURIOL_174: [1]  # TODO Checking with prerelease Version of SD_Device_ProtocolList which can fail

@sidey79 sidey79 merged commit 6b796ab into RFD-FHEM:dev-r34 Nov 21, 2019
@elektron-bbs elektron-bbs deleted the dev-r34_TCM-218943 branch August 22, 2021 19:01
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants