I am having issues with the Wemo Motion. Any insight? Thank you.
Hereās the item:
Contact Motion_3FC āMotion Bureauā (gN380, Motion) {wemo=āSensor-1_0-221219L01013FCā}
Log file:
09:29:03.025 [DEBUG] [.o.b.wemo.internal.WemoBinding:123 ] - Wemo item āMotion_3FCā state will be updated
09:29:03.232 [DEBUG] [.o.b.wemo.internal.WemoBinding:472 ] - New binary state ā0ā for item āMotion_3FCā received
09:29:03.232 [DEBUG] [.o.b.wemo.internal.WemoBinding:123 ] - Wemo item āPlug_378ā state will be updated
09:29:03.232 [DEBUG] [ore.internal.items.ItemUpdater:73 ] - Received update of a not accepted type (OnOffType) for item Motion_3FC
09:29:03.247 [DEBUG] [.o.b.wemo.internal.WemoBinding:472 ] - New binary state ā1ā for item āPlug_378ā received
09:30:03.248 [DEBUG] [.o.b.wemo.internal.WemoBinding:118 ] - execute() method is called!
09:30:03.248 [DEBUG] [.o.b.wemo.internal.WemoBinding:123 ] - Wemo item āMotion_3FCā state will be updated
09:30:03.282 [DEBUG] [.o.b.wemo.internal.WemoBinding:472 ] - New binary state ā1ā for item āMotion_3FCā received
09:30:03.282 [DEBUG] [.o.b.wemo.internal.WemoBinding:123 ] - Wemo item āPlug_378ā state will be updated
09:30:03.282 [DEBUG] [ore.internal.items.ItemUpdater:73 ] - Received update of a not accepted type (OnOffType) for item Motion_3FC
As you can see I now get the state null regardless of motion or not, where previously I was getting a 0 or 1 depending on the actual motion sensor state. You mention the doku. Iām wondering if Iām not missing something? I went to the Github wiki for wemo binding and the example posted there does use the Contact for the Motion sensorā¦
Hereās what I found in the Wiki:
Contact Motion1 {wemo=āSensor-1-0-56437891ā}
You tell me what I should do and Iāll follow your advice, but hereās my thinking for going with 1.8.
I had started with 2.0 originally and as I was learning, I found many documentation unfinished.Which is totally understandable considering itās in beta version. As a totally green newbie, I didnāt really know where to start and some of the documentation actually referred to 1.8 differences and I didnāt even know what they were talking about since I didnāt know 1.8 either. So I figured I would get to know 1.8 and once comfortable with it, make the switch to 2.0. Iāve learned a heck of a lot in the last week or so. But Iām also guiding students that are right behind me and Iām often guiding them to the online documentation as a way of learning. And since the 2.0 documentation isnāt complete, itās holding me back a bit.
As an openHAB user since 1.3, I still have my productive system running on openHAB 1.8.3, but besides this, I also have another server running openHAB 2.0 for testing and developing. I am just missing time to move everything over to 2.0. But next holidays are coming and there will be some time.
I wrote about benefits before, so for example the WeMo binding. When I started to write the binding, I faced strong issues with WeMoās UPnP implementation, resulting in some limitations in my code (missing subscription handling etc.)
With openHAB 2.0 and its JUPnP implementation, I could make use of it and even add more functionality to the binding, still needed to implement some workarounds.
And as you can see, there are even more features to come which will be available in openHAB 2.0, but will not be backported to 1.x.
I get your point about documentation, but @rlkoshak and @ThomDietrich are doing an excellent job here and we need you all with your questions to realise, were documentation needs improvement.
Sometimes I see questions in this forum I never thought of and without asking them, nobody would have answered or documented.
So all I can do is encourage you to give openHAB 2.0 a try and tell us, were the software or the documentation needs improvement.
That sounds good to me. I will setup another system on 2.0 and start learning. I enjoy participating in the creation of āstuffā so if my questions can help in the development, I can definitely do that.
I will start a new thread to describe what we are doing since the original title no longer fits this discussion.
