[RELEASE] Lock User Management (LUM)

The toughest part is parsing the ICS in groovy. There are no classes readily available.

I havé the same issues. I configured 6 users : 3 permanent and 2 temporary.

I use version: 3.3.0 (2016.01.23)

The problem is that creating new code via app, say for user 5 , the app starts a process of reconfiguring the whole 6 users!! This process takes unpredictable time and in meantime permanent users , although already set may not work again ! Why because even if you just do one change, all 6 codes are removed and created again . This showed somehow dangerous in my case as some users could no longer use the lock for a period of time. The app continues attempt until all 6 codes are set. This process takes unpredicable duration ( hours ). Not because of the app , but because the z-wave connectivity with ST seems hazardous ( lock receive’s for some reason command with empty string in code ).

Promising app, however what is solution that works 100% reliably today to change codes remotely ?

Use my device type and the latest version of the smart app. Also when posting please start with what version of the device and smart app you are using. The latest versions don’t reprogram all codes.
You can subscribe to the facebook page for updates and new features and to keep your code upto date.

I just updated post. I use version 3.3.0 as of 23.01.2016. Kindly, let me know which version to try ?

Thank you,

Hakem,

Device -> 2.6.5
SmartApp -> 3.3.1

Make sure you’re using both

I just ensured, I updated both :

Device => 2.6.5
SpartApp ==> 3.3.1 freshly downloaded from server

I updated code for user 6 ( max users = 6 users). I still see for now that USER 1 is being deleted and inserted again:

I still see that users 1, 2, 3, …5 are delted and created again. I sent you log on PM for more details.

Thank you,

I have installed last updates : 3.3.1 ( for smartApp) + 2.6.5 ( for device driver).

ISSUE 1 :
User Code 3 would never set . Initial guess was communication issue because we see in the log of the Lock:
"zw device: 03, command: 9881, payload: 00 63 03 03
00 " parsed to [[‘name’:‘codeReport’, ‘value’:3,** ‘data’:[‘code’:’’],**
‘descriptionText’:Z-Wave Lock code 3 is not set, ‘displayed’:true,
‘isStateChange’:true, ‘linkText’:‘Z-Wave Lock’]]

The initial thought was that fact is code = null because of comunication issue on z-wave ( like hub far from lock).

As it was same user always not set, I have changed code and suddenly it worked.

I think that some codes are refused by lock as they look like history ones ( this topic is also talked about in other topics of the community). I think by spotting the right error code, it can be “nuanced” from communication issue.

My 2 cents

1 Like

Good insight. Thanks will look into it

So clarify here, was is that the code was used by another slot or just that the code already existed in that slot so it didn’t program it? Can you also point me to the discussion threads, would like to understand this better on what the lock issues are.

Code is not set is a case where the device handler is requesting the lock to set a code but the lock doesn’t for some reason. In your case was the slot already programmed with the right code so it was rejecting it?

Quick point for folks who are facing code programming issues in the last few days. The ST platform has become ridiculously unstable and the timers are just crapping out completely. So a typical symptom would be the first few codes are programmed and then the remaining codes just die.
A quick fix is to increase the programming delay to 60 seconds or more. Anything less than 60 causes the platform to puke.

Version 4.0.0
Revamped code initialization to work around crappy ST timers and make programming more reliable. Using dual programming strategy now to make it more redundant. First it will use burst programming to send the updates codes quickly and then in 60 seconds intervals (make sure your coding delay is set to 60 seconds) it will very each code.
Default coding interval is now 60 seconds as the platform is crapping out in shorter intervals

Folks please note make sure that you verify what time/timezone your hub is set to. I’ve had a few folks reach out to me about codes being scheduled at wrong times/running a few hours behind. The SmartApp takes the timezone / time from your Hub for all calculations. If the hub is incorrect everything will be incorrect.

Dear Rboy,

TEST CASE 07 : Are replaced USER CODES effectively removed from SCHLAGE ?

Here is test scenario:
1-) I created a USER 1 with code XXXX ;
2-) After 3 days, I decided to change code XXXX by code YYYY;
3-) I replace code XXXX by YYYY in the SmartApp , and then click on “done”;
4-) The logs of the App explain that USER 1 is deleted and then created again with new code YYYY;

When I go to the lock ( SCHLAGE BE469), I can still unlock wit hte previous code XXXX, while code YYYY is also opertional.

Please advise

Thank you,

Reset your lock and start over. You obviously have other codes in the lock not managed by the app. Each slot can only carry one code so if the new code is working then some other slot has the old code programmed into it. The app is only as good as you configure it

In fact when you unlock using the code in the device activity it’ll tell which slot was used to unlock it.

I will test again tomorrow in front of the lock and feedback on this

I would suggest reset all lock codes from the lock or set the app to max codes supported by the lock and let it wipe it clean. Though note it will take about 15 seconds per code to reprogram.

1 Like

Dear Rboy,
I wonder aether it is possible to have a flag when a code is used for first time. The reason is that I would like to trigger a first time “routine” like when you get to a place for first time I can run special music or so

Thank you

Yes definitely possible to track how many times the app has been run/updated however I didn’t understand the use case on what you want to do with it.What’s the purpose of the “music” (which I assume you mean Sonos?)

@craig everyone is aware of that code, and I think that was not fair at all to @RBoy here. While that code is free, support is iffy.While @ethayer supports the code, it is not his main focus. Rob supports his code and updates it as people request additional features. Also note that paying for access to this code gives you access to much more on his site as well.

Basically you are saying that a person supporting their code should not be paid for their time and labor. Not cool at all. Bet you pirate stuff as well. Sad really.

I am in no way dissing @ethayer code or what he has done for the community here. I use his code as well, but I think that the various programmers that help us make the best of ST need and should be paid for their time,

On another note, if you look at the code there are similarities due to the nature of what they are doing, but obviously not the same and each has their benefits and problems.

1 Like