Closed ZeroChaos- closed 1 year ago
This is good, but you need to keep grep('RADEX')
.
dmesg of my RD1212v2.48:
[13494.295276] usb 1-2: new full-speed USB device number 4 using xhci_hcd
[13494.471679] usb 1-2: New USB device found, idVendor=03eb, idProduct=5603, bcdDevice= 1.00
[13494.471707] usb 1-2: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=3
[13494.471719] usb 1-2: Product: RADEX 1212
[13494.471727] usb 1-2: Manufacturer: QWARTA-RAD
[13494.471734] usb 1-2: SerialNumber: 0001A0000000
[13494.488948] hid-generic 0003:03EB:5603.0007: hiddev1,hidraw4: USB HID v1.00 Device
[QWARTA-RAD RADEX 1212] on usb-0000:00:10.0-2/input0
dmesg of your RD1212v2.03:
[282336.627034] usb 1-1.3: new full-speed USB device number 24 using xhci_hcd
[282336.718944] usb 1-1.3: New USB device found, idVendor=10c4, idProduct=ea60, bcdDevice= 1.00
[282336.718948] usb 1-1.3: New USB device strings: Mfr=1, Product=2, SerialNumber=3
[282336.718950] usb 1-1.3: Product: CP2102 USB to UART Bridge Controller
[282336.718951] usb 1-1.3: Manufacturer: Silicon Labs
[282336.718952] usb 1-1.3: SerialNumber: 0001
[282337.901111] usbcore: registered new interface driver cp210x
[282337.901121] usbserial: USB Serial support registered for cp210x
[282337.901185] cp210x 1-1.3:1.0: cp210x converter detected
[282337.904024] usb 1-1.3: cp210x converter now attached to ttyUSB0
and if I remember correctly, with QuartaRad driver on Windows, with print(serial.tools.list_ports)
C:\Windows\system32>cmd.py readall
COM3 - USB5734 COM Port (COM3)
COM1 - Communications Port (COM1)
COM4 - RADEX ONE (COM4)
I did, it's still there, v2 is defined separately https://github.com/luigifab/python-radexreader/blob/master/src/radexreader/__init__.py#L48-L58
I only modified the v1 block https://github.com/luigifab/python-radexreader/blob/master/src/radexreader/__init__.py#L73-L84
I don't remember, but perhaps fixed in v1.2.2.
confirmed fixed in 1.2.2, thanks!
I only tested/modified radex 1212v1. Would you like me to add the continue line for v2 as well? I can also swap to the code style you used in the bug, however, I prefer mine since it allows to leave a comment as to why we are ignoring empty