Peter Newman

Duplicate of #1280

Sorry for the slow reply! Do you mean DetermineMaxPacketSize not GetMaxPacketSize? https://github.com/OpenLightingProject/ola/blob/b90866cd6742e68fa67e66217ec230cc1282f23e/tools/rdm/TestDefinitions.py#L619 What version of OLA and Python are you using?

As per the auto-closure, this is now fixed in our master branch @marknorton68 . Let us know if you have any further issues with it.

> If I'm understanding correctly - I agree we can probably just use `Q727697` everywhere Okay that's fine with me, I've updated the PR to match. > close this PR?...

Have you run the OLA RDM Tests against this too? https://www.openlighting.org/rdm-tools/rdm-responder-tests/ https://www.openlighting.org/rdm-tools/rdm-responder-tests/running-the-tests/

> @peternewman > > Thanks for the review! I've processed most of your comments. Great thanks. > I don't think the library should enforce using unique manufacturer-specific PIDs, but perhaps...

> Seems like we should add a catch for Set on the device label, return nack Write protected. No, there's little point implementing a read only device label, but I...

> I have one issue with the current (before my changes) method. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the delayed ACK message would be able to mangle up other communication...

Hi Daniel, Firstly thanks for this and for starting what is hopefully a steady flow of OLA contributions. :smile: Some general conceptual comments and questions to start off with, as...

> > > Currently e131 has the `ip` option which also allows specifying an interface. This has very fuzzy behaviour though, if the interface is not up e131 will pick,...