Simple node message identifiers are not parsed correctly

[balazsracz]

These issues are in the JMRI monitor. It's unclear whether this is a problem in the parsing codebase of openlcb.jar or in the JMRI monitor code though.

• Node initialization with MTI 0x101 is displayed as an unknown message in the monitor.

• Nde id verified / simple subset is also not supported (MTI 0x171).

• Verify Node ID Addressed seems to be unsupproted as well (0x488)

[dpharris]

Balazs et al -- Hmmm. I looked at my MTIAlocations table, and it does not appear ... should I add it? But worse, if I change the Simple-protocol bit to 1, the MTI becomes 0x0110, not 0x0101. David

…

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 10:46 AM Balazs Racz ***@***.***> wrote: These issues are in the JMRI monitor. It's unclear whether this is a problem in the parsing codebase of openlcb.jar or in the JMRI monitor code though. - Node initialization with MTI 0x101 is displayed as an unknown message in the monitor. - We should check whether the node id verified / simple subset is supported. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#254>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEDQST6AKRIAM6YJML6UFTYXNKJFAVCNFSM6AAAAABEOJZ2BWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGE3TOMZVGMZTKNI> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[balazsracz]

Yes, these messages are in the message network standard, therefore they should be added to mtiallocations.ods/pdf.

[dpharris]

I am suggesting that the standard has an error. David

…

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 11:58 AM Balazs Racz ***@***.***> wrote: Yes, these messages are in the message network standard, therefore they should be added to mtiallocations.ods/pdf. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#254 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEDQSTZUOA2EKOT4DK7L53YXNSWLAVCNFSM6AAAAABEOJZ2BWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSOBWHE3DENBRGM> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[balazsracz]

Maybe I don't understand what you are suggesting, maybe you could elaborate on why you think the standard has an error here?

[bobjacobsen]

Solved by PR #264