Skip to content

Invert blocked status check in EelinkProtocolDecoder#5842

Open
DemonExposer wants to merge 1 commit intotraccar:masterfrom
DemonExposer:patch-1
Open

Invert blocked status check in EelinkProtocolDecoder#5842
DemonExposer wants to merge 1 commit intotraccar:masterfrom
DemonExposer:patch-1

Conversation

@DemonExposer
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Status bytes sometimes get interpreted incorrectly because of bit 6 (for blocked status) being processed incorrectly. In decodeNew, it is not the same as in decodeStatus. I assume this was done because of the change in firmware documentation by Eelink.

I know they describe it weird, which could lead you to believe that they flipped the functionality, but this is not the case. They kept it the same.

I tested this with some devices where some packets show blocked = true and some show blocked = false. The change that I made fixes this to always show the correct status.

@tananaev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

tananaev commented Apr 8, 2026

Please attach the supporting documents.

@DemonExposer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I'm not going to share a copyrighted document without having any authorization to do so.
I will tell you that in the 1.9.0 firmware, it states for bit 6 == 0: "cut off oil and power" and for bit 6 == 1: "restore oil and power". decodeStatus conforms to this.

For the newer firmware versions, such as 2.1, it states for bit 6 == 0: "The relay control is not triggered" and for bit 6 == 1: "The relay control is triggered"

I feel like the newer description is very ambiguous, but I don't see a reason for them to switch it around. Also, according to my tests, they didn't.

However, in decodeNew, it is switched around.

@tananaev
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

tananaev commented Apr 9, 2026

Sorry, but we won't be able to accept it without documentation. At the very least you have to share it privately for verification.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants