We do not have 1301:1001 in our database but it may be similar to 1301:1000. Please let me know if this entry seems to agree with your manual. If so, we can add a second ID that would be added in a newer binding version.
From what I see it seems ok. Is there any way to make some test verification in advance? If it is a matter of making some action changing some files in order to add the 1301:1001 in the DB. I can make some tests and give you a feedback. Thanks
[quote=“maria, post:3, topic:91422”]Is there any way to make some test verification in advance? If it is a matter I can make some tests and give you a feedback.
There is a process where you can manually unpack and remake a jar file.
The database is exported once a week on weekends so if you can wait, there should be a snapshot binding available for testing.
I see this as a low risk change likely only impacting you.
thank you for your update. When you talk about the manual process to unpack and remake a jar file: could you point me on some documentation where is explained a little bit more the process? I’d like to learn a bit more on how the things are added manually when they are not included in the DB. Unfortunately I don’t have a deep knowledge of the openhab system architecture, but I’d like to learn.
thank you so much for your guideline, it was very interesting to put the hands on the system a little bit more, I learn a lot. However from the test I did last night it seems not enough to make the thermostat recognized by the binding module even after your changing in the xml file. Then I had the idea to edit the xml descriptor adding the property on minimum fw version and then worked. I have not yet completed the test because was very late. I hope I have time today to give you more feedback on that, but until now the valuable information on my testing is that regarding the firmware version. It seems a key information required in the xml file to complete the discovery process.
What I wrote does make sense in your experience ?