paulvha
paulvha
I had the first look to the updated code this afternoon, and found a couple of issues and it failed (issue 3 below): 1) from file_token_manger.py, .__init__() doing: ``` if...
**I wonder whether the correct "expires_in"** is used for the **access-code.** This code is only valid for 10 minutes after it was provided by Tado. When http() is called from...
> @paulvha you might also comment directly in the code, that way you can presicely point to the questionable code. > > > Now the FileContent.OAUTH_DATA is send to _set_oauth_data()...
It might be the pin-to-pad numbering. what happens if you use myServo.attach(D8); instead of myServo.attach(8); (so an 'D' in front in front of the pin).
Good to hear this works. With the early versions of the Artemis boards the PIN and PAD numbers were the same. In later boards that is not the case, but...
I am not sure a lock is necessary. It works in parallel so far using different device-logins / and thus different device-ID. / and different refresh-file or even without a...
also thinking about the lock-file.. Do you mean that the issue is NOT Tado or deviceId, but if applications access the same PyTado instance could it happen that Application-A does...
That is real condition that I could see happen. There are indeed multiple solutions and I would not directly have a preference. Maybe it is a "once in a million"...
The easiest way was described by Wolfgang in an earlier post : just do a reload from the refresh-token file (if it exists) before doing a refresh of the access...
I have added in the pull-request #179