DeviceCommissioning / DeviceComissioning

[trojanobelix]

The DSP302 (V3.2.1) stated:

Device Configuration File Configuration tools have to know, which device in the network is the CANopen Manager. For the purpose of designating this manufacturer independent, this information is written into the DCF files of the project. The section DeviceComissioning of each device contains the boolean entry CANopenManager. If the entry is missing, the described device is not the CANopen Manager.

Some tools (eg. EDSchecker from Vector) use the DSP302 definition [DeviceComissioning] but some others (e.g. HMS/Ixxat CanAnalyser) use right spelling: [DeviceCommissioning]

The CANopenEditor uses DeviceCommissioning, which satisfied just one variant.

How to make it compatible for both?

[CANopenNode]

CANopen XML Schema specifies "DeviceCommissioning": https://www.can-cia.org/xml/1.1/ProfileBody_Network_CANopen.xsd

But the standard CiA306 specifies [DeviceComissioning] as keyword inside DCF file but standard uses correct spelling inside its explanation text.

I think, CANopenEditor should write [DeviceComissioning] into DCF file as specified by standard. But only into DCF file, leave unchanged elsewhere. I hope HMS/Ixxat CanAnalyser will work.

[trojanobelix]

What a mess. As if the CanOpen standard wasn't complicated enough in itself :-)

[trojanobelix]

I had already changed everything to "Commission" as specified in DSP302/DSP306 until I realised that not all tools use this definition. Changing only the DCF seems to be a good compromise. Ixxat/HMS will not work, I have tested that. But they should read the standard more carefully :-)

[trojanobelix]

fixed in ab0eab86b739b2750f73dbb47ad9dfff957f9fab