I have homegear running with pimatic as frontend. Everything was working until the last update to Homegear version 0.7.9-1375.
I have updated from 1.6 to 2.5 firmware with my HM-ES-PMSw1-Pl. The Devices are listed in peers list with the new version 2.5
1 │ │ 4DA875 │ NEQ0881440 │ 0095 │ HM-CC-RT-DN │ 1.4 │ No │ No │ No
2 │ │ 4DA8C1 │ NEQ0881444 │ 0095 │ HM-CC-RT-DN │ 1.4 │ No │ No │ No
3 │ │ 4CE52E │ NEQ0872964 │ 0095 │ HM-CC-RT-DN │ 1.4 │ No │ No │ No
4 │ │ 4D19D9 │ NEQ0869138 │ 00D8 │ HM-LC-Sw1-Pl-DN-R1 │ 2.6 │ No │ No │ No
5 │ │ 4B3003 │ NEQ0386979 │ 00AC │ HM-ES-PMSw1-Pl │ 2.5 │ No │ No │ No
6 │ │ 4A7FE2 │ NEQ0385295 │ 00AC │ HM-ES-PMSw1-Pl │ 2.5 │ No │ No │ No
7 │ │ 4B302F │ NEQ0386952 │ 00AC │ HM-ES-PMSw1-Pl │ 2.5 │ No │ No │ No
Manually switching the 5|6|7 is working and homegear broadcasts the state.
But for some reason calling setValue with id 7 fails with ‘Device not found’
10/03/17 21:14:15.435 RPC Server (Port 2001): Info: Client number 12 is calling RPC method: setValue (4) Parameters:
(Integer) 7
(Integer) 1
(String) STATE
(Boolean) 0
10/03/17 21:14:15.435 RPC Server (Port 2001): Response:
(Struct length=2)
{
[faultCode]
{
(Integer) -2
}
[faultString]
{
(String) Device not found.
}
}
Anyone? I think this is an enormous problem since a fresh install to a clean debian armbian system leads to the same result.
auth: none
Using this { "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 125, "method": "getValue", "params": [5,2,'STATE']}
Prints the following error in the log:
10/08/17 14:10:32.309 RPC Server (Port 2001): Info: Connection from ::ffff:192.168.100.110:49170 accepted. Client number: 12
10/08/17 14:10:32.310 RPC Server (Port 2001): Info: RPC server client id for client number 12 is: 2
10/08/17 14:10:32.312 RPC Server (Port 2001): Error in file RPC/RPCServer.cpp line 666 in function void Rpc::RPCServer::analyzeRPC(std::shared_ptrRpc::RPCServer::Client, std::vector&, Rpc::RPCServer::PacketType::Enum, bool): Tried to decode invalid number.
Edit
Ok using double quotes for String leads to the initial “Device not found” error.
you are not the only one who reported the problem. I would have looked into it tomorrow. So I was surprised to see the solution in your pull request on GitHub. Great job!