Simple node message identifiers are not parsed correctly #254

Activity

1. dpharris commented on Mar 9, 2024

   

   dpharris

   on Mar 9, 2024 via email

   Contributor

   More actions

   Balazs et al -- Hmmm. I looked at my MTIAlocations table, and it does not appear ... should I add it? But worse, if I change the Simple-protocol bit to 1, the MTI becomes 0x0110, not 0x0101. David

   …

   On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 10:46 AM Balazs Racz ***@***.***> wrote: These issues are in the JMRI monitor. It's unclear whether this is a problem in the parsing codebase of openlcb.jar or in the JMRI monitor code though. - Node initialization with MTI 0x101 is displayed as an unknown message in the monitor. - We should check whether the node id verified / simple subset is supported. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#254>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEDQST6AKRIAM6YJML6UFTYXNKJFAVCNFSM6AAAAABEOJZ2BWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGE3TOMZVGMZTKNI> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>
2. balazsracz commented on Mar 9, 2024

   

   balazsracz

   on Mar 9, 2024

   CollaboratorAuthor

   More actions

   Yes, these messages are in the message network standard, therefore they should be added to mtiallocations.ods/pdf.
3. dpharris commented on Mar 9, 2024

   

   dpharris

   on Mar 9, 2024 via email

   Contributor

   More actions

   I am suggesting that the standard has an error. David

   …

   On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 11:58 AM Balazs Racz ***@***.***> wrote: Yes, these messages are in the message network standard, therefore they should be added to mtiallocations.ods/pdf. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#254 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEDQSTZUOA2EKOT4DK7L53YXNSWLAVCNFSM6AAAAABEOJZ2BWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSOBWHE3DENBRGM> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>
4. balazsracz commented on Mar 9, 2024

   

   balazsracz

   on Mar 9, 2024 via email

   CollaboratorAuthor

   More actions

   Maybe I don't understand what you are suggesting, maybe you could elaborate on why you think the standard has an error here?
5. bobjacobsen commented on Jan 16, 2025

   

   bobjacobsen

   on Jan 16, 2025

   Contributor

   More actions

   Solved by PR #264