JP1 Remotes

vickyg2003 wrote:I'd like the RCA remote added, as this seems to come up a lot,

You are referring to '31793179 (RCA RCRP05B black).rdf' right? If so I actually already moved that one as I agree it is a very popular one. That is the only one I already moved.

vickyg2003 wrote: Also would like to have the 3032 Atlas moved from released to the Development stage, its definately not ready for primetime.

Also I am wondering if the slingbox-fake can be removed from the released file, since we've added all the binpl,binrv.... whatever for the slingbox.

For Atlas - we can definitely do that unless someone is working on updating it. I know nothing about Slingbox - so.. just let me know.

xnappo

7. Run Vicky's(?) 'upgrade fixer' on files

I hadn't planned on doing that, but can pretty easily do that if Mike will make one change to the output file routine and enclose the rdfnames in brackets[]. That eliminates the need for a line by line parse, and makes it so I can just pick it up and dump it in, without adding a whole bunch of code...

vickyg2003 wrote:

7. Run Vicky's(?) 'upgrade fixer' on files

I hadn't planned on doing that, but can pretty easily do that if Mike will make one change to the output file routine and enclose the rdfnames in brackets[]. That eliminates the need for a line by line parse, and makes it so I can just pick it up and dump it in, without adding a whole bunch of code...

That would be great if that can be worked out - it would be nice to be able to do it all with your tool.

xnappo

Vicky, I updated the file again. See if this is what you wanted.

Note: signatures for some older remotes with 4-byte signatures are like this: The first part is in the RDF file name. The second part should be in the RDF in the [FixedData] or [AutoSet] sections.

I see the sourceforge site still has the original versions of the Slingbox RDF files. These are a bit buggy and not designed properly for RM.

My revised versions (along with an updated image), which have now been proven over the last 6 months, are at https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... le_id=7201

Al

mr_d_p_gumby wrote:Vicky, I updated the file again. See if this is what you wanted.

Note: signatures for some older remotes with 4-byte signatures are like this:

Code: Select all

[O80a | O80C]

The first part is in the RDF file name. The second part should be in the RDF in the [FixedData] or [AutoSet] sections.

Thanks Mike, that really simplifies things on my side when I can just process it as a blob, instead of having to open it, and analzye each line.

Real quick question, could somebody verify that the new section heading should be :

[SetupCodes]

^^^

That's correct. Don't forget about adding this line to the [General] section as well:

SetupValidation=Enforce

Value could also be Off or Warn, but I can't think of any reason not to use Enforce.

alanrichey wrote:I see the sourceforge site still has the original versions of the Slingbox RDF files. These are a bit buggy and not designed properly for RM.

My revised versions (along with an updated image), which have now been proven over the last 6 months, are at https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/dload ... le_id=7201

Al

Thanks - I will update those.
xnappo

mdavej wrote: Don't forget about adding this line to the [General] section as well:

SetupValidation=Enforce

Value could also be Off or Warn, but I can't think of any reason not to use Enforce.

Ahh the plot thickens. I was totally unaware of that. Back to the drawing board.

vickyg2003 wrote:

mdavej wrote: Don't forget about adding this line to the [General] section as well:

SetupValidation=Enforce

Value could also be Off or Warn, but I can't think of any reason not to use Enforce.

Ahh the plot thickens. I was totally unaware of that. Back to the drawing board.

Should we use 'warn' for some beta testing?

Thanks,
xnappo

xnappo wrote:

vickyg2003 wrote:

mdavej wrote: Don't forget about adding this line to the [General] section as well:

SetupValidation=Enforce

Value could also be Off or Warn, but I can't think of any reason not to use Enforce.

Ahh the plot thickens. I was totally unaware of that. Back to the drawing board.

Should we use 'warn' for some beta testing?

Thanks,
xnappo

Your call, I've got it with Enforce right now, but Warn is just 4 letters away.

I don't know. Enforce can keep people out of trouble, but will force them to assign valid codes to unused devices, which is something they may not want to bother with. The only other time Enforce could be a problem is if the SetupCodes list is wrong, hence xnappo's beta testing request I suppose. So maybe Warn is the way to go for the time being.

mdavej wrote:I don't know. Enforce can keep people out of trouble, but will force them to assign valid codes to unused devices, which is something they may not want to bother with. The only other time Enforce could be a problem is if the SetupCodes list is wrong, hence xnappo's beta testing request I suppose. So maybe Warn is the way to go for the time being.

Yeah it just depends on how confident we are in the data. If we are pretty confident it is correct we can go with enforce...

xnappo

I went with

SetupValidation=Warn

If you see a spelling problem speak up now.