It’s a terrible, stupid, awful approach - but I fear the bug is in the danalock and not the zwave binding… so I’m not holding my breath for a fix…
If you think that this issue is a bug in the ZWave binding, then please grab a debug logfile so we can investigate…
thanks for the credit - but i only can guess. This is very depending on how the guys from danalock designed the whole RF stuff. While it could be a good idea to send a zwave signal at the end of a transaction - i don’t know if they are sending it at all. because - while the bluetooth signal is attached - you don’t know if you can interrupt it with a sending zwave signal. (which may also cause an energy issue). But - everything blindfolded guessing from my side.
This is a question for the danalock-support - i guess. And also something they could easily fix with an firmware update. It would be very nice if someone of their hardware-developers would give us a hint/support.
This version does not include security - you should use the snapshot build.
It is included in the snapshot build now, but it can’t be retrospectively added to versions that were created in the past.
See here for the merging notification -:
It’s hard to say - I’d need to see the debug logs. If it’s not showing up at all, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the inclusion (not even secure inclusion) as a device should pretty much always include if the device and controller are working.
It’s unlikely but possible that the reset did not clear it’s zwave info, so try doing an exclusion of the lock.
Just a little hint, are you on the latest firmware of the Danalock? If not, it would be a good idea to update it.
No - the message says the manufacturer data is now known, so probably the device discovery has not happened. It’s worth looking at DEBUG logs to see what is happening.
I’m not really sure what’s happening. The log unfortunately isn’t so helpful, but the status in PaperUI is that the device is not communicating, and this is also about all I can conclude from the log.
The best thing from here would be to reset the device and re-include it, and provide me the full log of that first inclusion. The device will only securely include the first time it’s included after a reset - this secure key exchange must occur within 15 seconds of the inclusion, and if it doesn’t work, then you must reset and start again from the beginning as the device will then never allow secure communications.
There have been very few changes, so my guess is that it should still work.
I would need to see a debug logfile to see what is happening - there must be information logged showing the issue, just maybe not where you are looking. Maybe the issue is during initialisation - maybe the secure inclusion didn’t work? This would still have the device online, but it would not be able to do much as most CCs are hidden.
It would be great if you could add this into the database so it ends up in the documentation. There is a box called something like “Usage Information” where this sort of information could be added - or even in the overview information.
Is it this one -:
https://www.cd-jackson.com/index.php/zwave/zwave-device-database/zwave-device-list/devicesummary/708
I don’t understand what you mean?
Can you please tell me which part of the log is A) and which part is B)?
If the information is missing from the logs, then it also means that the binding cannot do anything to display such missing information. The log displays everything that is received - nothing received will result in no update.
Normally this is related to associations, or other configuration in the device. This device has a lifeline group, and if set, it should send these notifications. The binding should automatically set this group, so this should enable the reporting.
Where did you get this from? I only see Build #1392 on cloudbees??
you are looking in the old project page (https://openhab.ci.cloudbees.com/job/openHAB-Distribution/)
the latest snapshot builds are now available on: openHAB-Distribution [Jenkins]
1 Like
Thank you, I was not aware of that change.
1 Like
I’m not sure what mapping you are referring to exactly? Is this related to a channel definition, or the device itself?