-
Hey,
It does not really affect the integration from working, however I am not sure if this is wanted/Intended. Therefore I decided not to open an issue so far. Best regards. Version 2024.5.1 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 2 comments
-
I noticed these log messages as well - not 100% sure how to deal with them - in fact there are beside I52 multiple (additional) alarm-bit's - but looks like not all Waterkotte models are supporting these additional bit-fields (I2608-I2614) - I might just reduce the log level in this case but this is only a partly solution - "best" would be, that integration try to guess the possible alarm bit fields - and then use the ones that exist... Let's see what I can implement over time... In general this warning log mainly exist to indicate the the Integration/sensors configured requesting TAGs that are not supported by the hardware - but in this special ALARM-BITs I decided for a tag combination... -> so the error handling should be different... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think, this is a some sort of smart fix for the issue... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
I noticed these log messages as well - not 100% sure how to deal with them - in fact there are beside I52 multiple (additional) alarm-bit's - but looks like not all Waterkotte models are supporting these additional bit-fields (I2608-I2614) - I might just reduce the log level in this case but this is only a partly solution - "best" would be, that integration try to guess the possible alarm bit fields - and then use the ones that exist... Let's see what I can implement over time...
In general this warning log mainly exist to indicate the the Integration/sensors configured requesting TAGs that are not supported by the hardware - but in this special ALARM-BITs I decided for a tag combination.…