On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 20:45 +0200, Arnaud Quette wrote: > apart that load.* and shutdown.* may require the UPS to be on battery > to actually work. > at the very least, SxxRxxxx (S for shutdown, R for restart, and xx for > delays), so load.* and shutdown.*, must be implemented. > if this last test fails, you should really get refunded.
Hm, wait — krauler_subcommand() doesn't even *do* anything for the SxxRxxxx commands. We're not actually asking the UPS to do anything at all. This test (test.battery.start.deep) should at least do *something*, but doesn't... 39.195653 send: TL 39.596730 received 10 (85) 39.596780 read: UPS No Ack 39.997623 received 10 (85) 39.997680 read: UPS No Ack 40.398541 received 10 (85) 40.398557 read: UPS No Ack 40.799400 received 10 (85) 40.799450 read: UPS No Ack 41.200526 received 10 (85) 41.200583 read: UPS No Ack 41.601580 received 10 (85) 41.601627 read: UPS No Ack 42.002598 received 10 (85) 42.002651 read: UPS No Ack 42.403712 received 10 (85) 42.403758 read: UPS No Ack 42.804772 received 10 (85) 42.804827 read: UPS No Ack 43.206129 received 10 (85) 43.206181 read: UPS No Ack 43.206195 instcmd: command [test.battery.start.deep] handled Did we ever have any documentation on this protocol, or was it all reverse-engineered? -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
