lsiepel

> , I am busy with overhaul to address the review feedback. Will let you know once a new review is needed. Hi @arjanmels are you planning to proceed with...

@thanast are you able to proceed with this PR? If you abandon this PR, it might be better to close it.

> Hi all, the improvements mentioned before (RF support, Openhab storage service) are now part of the PR. Apart from the DCO issue, the binding is now done and ready...

> Is that the way you treat all customers? > > I have looked into forums. > > I have already downloaded the code and investigated. The openhab telegram binding...

@dag81 i might review this, but before that review, this PR has to build succesfull wihtout new SAT errors or warnigs. Can you sync your branches with openhab main, fix...

> @lsiepel : is it a breaking change that can make existing setups no more working ? I cannot fully garantee it won't break any setup, but i can't think...

Maybe this should be a subbinding of modbus or an addition to the current binding? Don't know it that makes sense, i'm no modbus expert. Anyway, it needs some work...

@weymann this is marked as WIP for some time and that is perfectly fine. With 150+ changed files, it would take multiple review rounds i guss and some extensive testing...

> > @weymann this is marked as WIP for some time and that is perfectly fine. With 150+ changed files, it would take multiple review rounds i guss and some...

> The 3rd party folder and the *.proto files are given by [daimler from this repo](https://github.com/mercedes-benz/MBSDK-CarKit-iOS). Code is genereated and shouldn't be reviewed in my opinion. > From history: before...