- Platform information:
- Hardware: x86/2Gb/54Gb
- OS: Debian 11
- Java Runtime Environment: Oracle Java 8u251
- openHAB version:2.5.4
- Issue of the topic: Linking a Qubino Flush 2 Relays ZMNHBA2 (which has physical switch) to a Fibaro FGS222 double relay (which is connected to actual light). Intention is for the light on the Fibaro to light up in accordance to the physical switching on the Qubino.
Separate test 1: When pressing the physical switch (Qubino), the event is sent to openHAB and shown in the Paper UI (for the channel created and linked to it).
Separate test 2: A (different) channel (switch) linked to the Fibaro also works, when I slide it in the Paper UI, the light bulb starts burning.
Combination test 1: Linking the 2 channels together on the side of the Qubino (where the physical switches are) results in visually all switches going nicely on and off in the UI, in accordance with the physical switch. However, the light bulb doesn’t do anything. Swithing the Qubino on and off in the Paper UI doesn’t do anything either, only clicking the switch in the Paper UI on the Fibaro actually switches the bulb on and off.
Combination test 2: Unlinking the two channels in the Qubino and now linking them on the Fibaro (connected to actual bulb): in the Paper UI when I click the Qubino switch, the light bulb finally acts accordingly. Pressing the physical switch on the Qubino makes all the linked switches slide on and off in the UI, but the light bulb doesn’t do anything correspondingly.
Is it normal behaviour to only work on the Fibaro side (for the Paper UI side) and not on the Qubino side ?
What am I doing wrong ? I thought my test would have been pretty simple and straightforward (remote switch linked to remote light).
Many thanks for your assistance !
I’m not super great with zwave, but I’m all but certain that those who can help you will need to see your configs. It would also be helpful to generate debug logs. See the Zwave readme for how to set that up.
It is in the binding documentation here.
I thought this is standard OpenHAB? Linking things to items via channels and linking multiple channels together (regardless of used tech) ? I was probably not using the correct terminology? I figured last night that it’s probably not good to have each item it’s own channel and trying to link both ? Probably I should use only one channel and re-use that … I will try that today.
I wasn’t referring to ZWave group associations of the devices, which is of course a good suggestion that I will investigate later on, but for that I would need HABMin I think. Alas I started out with the “standard” package, and changing the config file to package = expert didn’t do anything. I need to figure out first what I need to do there.
Many thanks and apologies if I didn’t phrase it correctly.
The Paper UI is only for administering OH use the Basic UI and sitemaps for normal operation.
Yes, but there is rather more to it than just piling a bunch of channels on an Item.
“Data flow” around openHAB.
Info from devices -> bindings -> update Item states
Item Commands (from rules or UI) -> bindings -> Instructions to device
Note that commands and state updates are different things,
By design, an incoming state update will not trigger an outgoing binding as though it were a command.
In a great many cases, rules get involved - turn the light on but only when dark etc. You’re going to want to explore this eventually anyway, I’d suggest starting now.
There are tools like channel profiles and binding parameter settings that allow you to strap one device channel directly to another in an in-out fashion, but unless you clearly understand the normal flow of commands you will get in a mess with these advanced features.
It’s not the terminology, its the details. We always need to see how you’ve configured the Items that are not working. As rossko57 indicated, you can’t just pile up a bunch of links on the same Item and expect it to work. You have to understand what links report updates and what links can receive commands. You may need to apply a profile or, more likely Rules. There might just be a syntax error in how it’s set up (e.g. missing a comma).
Without seeing how you’ve attempted to configure this we are left guessing which is a waste of our time and a waste of your time.