-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.6k
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
Checking if upgrade instructions were provided for all OH 4 PRs #14928
Comments
@J-N-K : is the feature enough clever to not add again a channel that would be already present because a user created his thing after the enhancement but before upgrade instructions were provided? |
No, but you can workaround that by using "update" instead of "add". Calling "add" when a channel already exists results in an exception, "remove" or "update" don't fail if the channel is not present. |
|
|
This issue has been mentioned on openHAB Community. There might be relevant details there: |
Willing to spare some time, but is this still relevant since 4.0 has allready been released? |
No, unfortunately, it is too late I believe. |
This issue has been mentioned on openHAB Community. There might be relevant details there: https://community.openhab.org/t/fine-offset-weather-station-binding-discussion/134167/228 |
As a mechanism was introduced in OH 4 to provide an automatic upgrade of managed things, I think it would make sense that this mechanism was used in all PRs merged in OH4. At the time I am writing this message, we have 515 PRs merged tagged with milestone 4.0.
I think we could at least do a quick control in all these PRs, that is check if a thing was updated in XML files and no upgrade instructions were provided.
I will then list the found PRs here.
Is there someone to help me doing these checks ? I plan to start from the oldest. So if someone would like to start from the most recent, this would help.
Of course, after these PRs are identified, this will require to add upgrade instructions.
Checked from PR 14896 (page 2)
To be checked: #14622 #14641
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: