Closed zxdavb closed 6 months ago
Not convinced about this, We can't ask the gateway to do anything that the HGI80 doesn't do ( it doesn't decide to resend by itself) so need a better example of how it might be used.
We ~can't~ [shouldn't?] ask the gateway to do anything that the HGI80 doesn't do
I agree that evofw3 shouldn't do anything a HGI80 wouldn't do (although this is not 100% the case, presently - e.g. the way it handles 18:730
in ADDR1, ADDR2).
Instead, I believe that sent packets should be sent as JSON.
The point is that ramses_esp is not evofw3 - it had additional capabilities and it will likely be used in ways we have yet to think of. For example, it could be used as a RF-RF relay.
This is only a suspicion: I can't think of a good example - hence my apology, 'am not sure my example is a good one'.
Regardless, this isn't a biggie - if we can add JSON support in addition to text at some time in the future?
I'm thinking of changing it to JSON to help debug the ramses_rf QoS issue. If the JSON includes the timestamp RF publishes the packet to MQTT we'll be able to get a handle on where things might be going wrong.
Fixed in v0.4.4
I am using 0.3.6.
When I subscribe to
/RAMSES/GATEWAY/18:017804/rx
, I receive packets like so:But when I publish via
/RAMSES/GATEWAY/18:017804/tx
, I send strings like so:Instead, I believe that sent packets should be sent as JSON.
Because: this will allow us to add meta-data to the command in future, for example:
(I am not sure my example is a good one - I am using it only to demonstrate the point I'm making about JSON).