AVNET model not compatible? about azureiotdevicesimulator5-pnp HOT 5 OPEN

Hi Stefan,

Thanks for your message. Mmmm......let me take some time to debug what you mention properly.
I will give you news quite soon ;).

from azureiotdevicesimulator5-pnp.

Hi Stefan,

Just pushed an evolution to take into account the notation with arrays (which is linked to semantics and units).
Details here.

The set of unit tests and non-regression tests are ok but I will add more tests in the upcoming days (for instance, using the DTDL you provided). I will keep you posted.

Additionally, I will check with Microsoft if there is a "best practice" in terms of notations and/or if we should use the "array" notation all the time.

Feel free to reach out or report any other issue/feedback.

from azureiotdevicesimulator5-pnp.

Hi Jon,

I did a quick test with and without the array notation. Currently, the behavior seems to be as before: it works without the array and does not work with the array.

Looking forward to the next updates, thanks again for working on this.

From the examples that I looked at and the manufacturer-submitted models in the iot-plugandplay-models repo, it seems that the array notation is quite wide-spread.

from azureiotdevicesimulator5-pnp.

Hi @stefan-hudelmaier,

Sorry it took me some time to write you back.
Thank you for your answer.

There were actually many things involved in the issue after my last release. Telemetries with semantic and units were covered in the release of last week; the errors you encountered were due to other sources (commands with "rich" payloads (type object)).

The new version should solve all the mentioned issues.
New tests will be added (mainly to properties) but I already wanted to write you some updates.

from azureiotdevicesimulator5-pnp.

Hi @jonmikeli ,

I just tested your new release and it worked like a charm! Thank you so much for your swift fixes and improvements!

from azureiotdevicesimulator5-pnp.