Forum Discussion

RokuKevin's avatar
RokuKevin
Visitor
15 years ago

Please test v2.9 b 1523

You can PM serial numbers for any box that you'd like to get this build so that you can regression test your channels before we roll this build out to all our customers.

Let us know ASAP if there are problems.

Thanks,

Kevin

7 Replies

  • "judcoScott" wrote:
    Anything tasty in the ECP for us AV control systems guys ?

    Hopefully they reveal what the touch commands do
  • I was poking around with ECP commands using 1509 and noticed an XML error in the output. Notice the extra > in the line:

    <root xmlns="urn:schemas-upnp-org:device-1-0" xmlns:ms="urn:microsoft-com:wmc-1-0"> >

    I know very little about the protocol and have only just started poking around since my unit is 3 days old, so I apologize if I'm pointing out something that isn't actually an error.

    The output was the result of a direct HTTP GET of port 8060, not standard use I'm sure. I thought you should know if it hasn't yet been addressed in 1523. Are there change logs I could reference to determine this in the future?
  • "deltafactory" wrote:
    I was poking around with ECP commands using 1509 and noticed an XML error in the output. Notice the extra > in the line:

    <root xmlns="urn:schemas-upnp-org:device-1-0" xmlns:ms="urn:microsoft-com:wmc-1-0"> >

    I know very little about the protocol and have only just started poking around since my unit is 3 days old, so I apologize if I'm pointing out something that isn't actually an error.

    The output was the result of a direct HTTP GET of port 8060, not standard use I'm sure. I thought you should know if it hasn't yet been addressed in 1523. Are there change logs I could reference to determine this in the future?


    That XML is related to the SSDP discovery, if you didn't know
  • I knew what it is/does, but not enough to know if there was a reason for it to be what looks like invalid XML.

    I just upgraded to 1523 which must have been pushed in the past couple days. The > is still there, so if it's an error it hasn't been fixed.
  • "deltafactory" wrote:
    I knew what it is/does, but not enough to know if there was a reason for it to be what looks like invalid XML.

    I just upgraded to 1523 which must have been pushed in the past couple days. The > is still there, so if it's an error it hasn't been fixed.

    Technically, it is a bug, and has actually been reported previously, but hasn't been fixed yet.