Closed critzo closed 10 years ago
has this been fixed by https://github.com/opentechinstitute/commotiond/pull/82?
This is actually the wrong text for the bug, I submitted three or four bugs in a short span of time - this one is referring to a user interface element. @critzo what happened to the other bugs I submitted via the commotionwireless.net form?
@andygunn I'll dig them up and repost. Sorry for the mixup.
No worries - thanks for doing that! I just want to make sure y'all have all the info (though I am pretty sure you have identified all the issues at this point). -A
On 02/12/2014 08:53 PM, critzo wrote:
@andygunn https://github.com/andygunn I'll dig them up and repost. Sorry for the mixup.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/opentechinstitute/commotion-router/issues/93#issuecomment-34940622.
Andy Gunn, Field Engineer Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation andygunn@opentechinstitute.org | 202-596-3484
@andygunn or @critzo, can this issue be closed out then? Or is this still relevant?
I don't know - have the mesh connection issues been resolved? I haven't been testing new builds so I can't comment.
The core issue was no mesh connection after Setup or a reboot, seemingly randomly. I believe I sent debug files a while back.
On 02/18/2014 03:43 PM, Josh King wrote:
@andygunn https://github.com/andygunn or @critzo https://github.com/critzo, can this issue be closed out then? Or is this still relevant?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/opentechinstitute/commotion-router/issues/93#issuecomment-35431123.
Andy Gunn, Field Engineer Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation andygunn@opentechinstitute.org | 202-596-3484
I just mean, from this thread, it sounded like this issue was posted here in error and would be reposted with different text elsewhere? I'm not trying to get at whether the actual problem is fixed, just whether this particular issue can be closed out as redundant or erroneous. ;-)
Oh sorry - I think @critzo would know if the various bugs were all posted, and if any of them are redundant. I'm not up to date on all of the issues in the queue.
On 02/18/2014 03:56 PM, Josh King wrote:
I just mean, from this thread, it sounded like this issue was posted here in error and would be reposted with different text elsewhere? I'm not trying to get at whether the actual problem is fixed, just whether this particular issue can be closed out as redundant or erroneous. ;-)
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/opentechinstitute/commotion-router/issues/93#issuecomment-35432564.
Andy Gunn, Field Engineer Open Technology Institute, New America Foundation andygunn@opentechinstitute.org | 202-596-3484
Duplicate issue. Closing.
Name: Andy Gunn Email Address: andygunn@opentechinstitute.org What type of bug it is? Minor (minor loss of function) What were you doing on the device right before and when the error occurred? This bug involved a test connection between two Commotion nodes - a NanoStation M2 and a PicoStation M2, in close proximity (~25 feet apart). Two fresh TFTP factory installs were performed on the equipment, with Commotion version 1.0, downloaded Tuesday January 14th.
Viewing the "Status" page under the Basic Menu in the Administrator panel. At the top of the page there shows: commotionAP (On) (Unsecured) (1 Client Connections) commotionMesh (On) (Secured) (0 Client Connections)
(Ignore the fact that there is no mesh connection - this is another bug filed in another report, that mesh connections do not always connect on boot) Please describe what behavior you expected: I expected to see the name of the Access Point and Mesh connection that were named in the Setup stage of configuring the device. Please describe what behavior you experienced that you believe is wrong: There should be the actual name of the interfaces that were set during setup, something along the lines of:
Access Point: CassCo.Co-AMP-AP (Unsecured) -- 1 client connected Mesh Link: Commotion (Secured) -- 0 Neighbor Connections
Also, the format of having information in parentheses is a bit unclear. If the interface is enabled, does it make sense to show it as (on)? Maybe just remove the line if the interface is disabled, since it isn't going to have any connections if it is off.