Skip to content
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

Support Albe protocol #1273

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Support Albe protocol #1273

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

sidey79
Copy link
Contributor

@sidey79 sidey79 commented Sep 21, 2024

  • Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
  • Tests for the changes have been added / modified (needed for for bug fixes / features)
  • commandref has been added / updated (needed for bug fixes / features)
  • What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
  • Bugfix (please link issue)
  • Feature enhancement
  • Documentation update
  • Unittest enhancement
  • other
  • What is the current behavior?
    (You can also link to an open issue here, if this describes the current behavior)

Data from albe shutter isn't demodulated

  • What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?

Data is demudulated

  • Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)

no

  • Other information:

https://forum.fhem.de/index.php?topic=82790.new#new

@sidey79 sidey79 changed the title feat: albe protocol and test added Support Albe protocol Sep 21, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 21, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 85.48%. Comparing base (cc7972d) to head (b297867).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1273      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.57%   85.48%   +0.90%     
==========================================
  Files         137      142       +5     
  Lines       10214    10275      +61     
  Branches     1675     1678       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         8639     8784     +145     
+ Misses       1574     1490      -84     
  Partials        1        1              
Flag Coverage Δ
fhem 77.70% <ø> (+1.10%) ⬆️
modules 85.48% <ø> (+0.90%) ⬆️
perl 95.57% <ø> (+0.32%) ⬆️
unittests 85.48% <ø> (+0.90%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@elektron-bbs
Copy link
Contributor

Ich denke mal, diese Protokolldefinition brauchen wir nicht. Wollen wir statt dessen die Definitionen von Protokoll 87 und 88 auf MU erweitern, wie im Forum vorgeschlagen, siehe https://forum.fhem.de/index.php?msg=1320671?

@sidey79
Copy link
Contributor Author

sidey79 commented Oct 30, 2024

Ja, irgendwie kommen wir hier nicht weiter das habe ich auch schon gedacht.

Da wurde zwar was empfangen und vermutlich auch passend zum albe aber es ist insgesamt alles zu unsicher.

Generell geht es ja aber auch mit der Erweiterung aus dem Forum nicht oder habe ich das nicht korrekt erfasst.

@elektron-bbs
Copy link
Contributor

Soweit ich das verstanden habe, funktioniert der Empfang damit zuverlässiger, da auch hier die Nachrichten mal als MS und mal als MU übertragen werden.
Das Senden geht dann natürlich nur mit den passenden Keys.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants