-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
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
add messaging areas #33
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
User Messaging Area (UMA) is only available on the CT80. I believe that Price Messaging Area (PMA) is available for most all models so I put it in the CommonThermostat class but I was only able to test against the CT80. The API allows 4 lines for the PMA but I could only make 2 work, may be different per model?
Functionally, it seems to work well. I was able to set the price & user messages on my CT80. If the line numbers are constrained by API and device model, the function should test for this and apply constraints, raising errors if an invalid line number is passed (e.g. if user passes 2 for line number on a CT80 when only 0-1 are supported). That said, interestingly enough, if I pass a line number greater than what the API supports, it seems to just put the message in the greatest line number supported by the device. I don't know if we can trust this for all devices.. I generally error on the safe side and treat any behavior not explicitly allowed by an API to be undefined, hence why I think this patch should test and warn/error if an invalid value is passed. |
I agree that it would be nice to do some validity checking. I had originally planned to do just that but ran into many troubles. Especially for the 26 and 1/2 character thing, I started to test lots of characters to see what would work in the 27th position and quickly tired of non-automated testing (need to automate reading the screen!) Also, the on/off behavior is unpredictable (even noted in the API doc). There would also be a need to test against other models like the CT30 and my fear is that it may be different per model... I quickly realized that the value wasn't keeping up with the invested effort, gave up and just left my findings as comments. I use the messaging area but I just treat it as unpredictable and accept that burden with my client code. |
There's a small merge conflict with this PR now, if you don't care to resolve it I can. But, I think we should change this so that it's specific to the CT80 (move it from CommonThermostat) since you (or I) are unable to test on other devices (e.g. CT30). If anyone with a CT30 can test this and confirm it works, then keeping it in CommonThermostat would be fine. That's my two cents at least. I would appreciate input from @TD22057 too in case I am wrong :) |
…messaging merge from upstream, resolve conflict
Merge conflict resolved, should be good to go. |
…messaging merge from upstream, resolve conflict
User Messaging Area (UMA) is only available on the CT80. I believe that Price Messaging Area (PMA) is available for most all models so I put it in the CommonThermostat class but I was only able to test against the CT80. The API allows 4 lines for the PMA but I could only make 2 work, may be different per model?