Jump to content

Welcome to Smart Home Forum by FIBARO

Dear Guest,

 

as you can notice parts of Smart Home Forum by FIBARO is not available for you. You have to register in order to view all content and post in our community. Don't worry! Registration is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to sign up. Become a part of of Smart Home Forum by FIBARO by creating an account.

 

As a member you can:

  •     Start new topics and reply to others
  •     Follow topics and users to get email updates
  •     Get your own profile page and make new friends
  •     Send personal messages
  •     ... and learn a lot about our system!

 

Regards,

Smart Home Forum by FIBARO Team


Application rejected request


Recommended Posts

Recently i got a weird notification: "Application rejected request".
I couldn't find any explanation for it.
Any ideas what this means?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have same question and to make it more clear question is about this notification:

Please login or register to see this spoiler.

 

ID 360 belongs to Aeotec HEM Gen 5 in my case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I see this many times when I include new modules

i get this many times for each association report group !

still waiting for an explanation, as modules work fine otherwise

i ended up believing this is normal and is not a problem 

 

06:58:45] ID 409: Received association report from group 1
[06:58:46] ID 409: Application rejected request

 

Edited by fel-x
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've asked Fibaro about it when I was testing Roller Shutter 3 beta bet never got an answer. So I looked at what was going on and in layman's terms, I could see the HC2 (this was quite a while ago, June 2018!) was trying to negotiate stuff with that module during inclusion and it failed. I did not keep the details because both HC2 and that module were at "beta" level but I did keep the discussion about this seemingly new "Application rejected request" message.

 

My best guess is that this is actually a kind of "debug" message.

 

AFAIK it does not cause trouble after inclusion, I guess something might be less than optimal but because Z-Wave has good backward and forward compatibility, eventually the module will work.

 

The most obvious downside is imho it makes inclusion (much) slower.

 

1 hour ago, fel-x said:

I see this many times when I include new modules

It probably depends on the type of module, and which "command classes" that module supports.

 

1 hour ago, fel-x said:

get this many times for each association report group !

I've seen that too and it does slow down the inclusion process

 

1 hour ago, fel-x said:

still waiting for an explanation, as modules work fine otherwise

i ended up believing this is normal and is not a problem 

I have not yet seen anyone complain about module behaviour after inclusion. That's why I think it is mainly intended as a diagnostic message, but not a very good one because it does not say what is happening and what should be done, but I would ignore it ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, petergebruers said:

"Application rejected request"

 

My best guess is that this is actually a kind of "debug" message.

 

COMMAND_CLASS_APPLICATION_STATUS

-> APPLICATION_REJECTED_REQUEST

-> APPLICATION_BUSY

both might generate that "Application rejected request" message, so in principle device was busy or not responding, or juck f** off (Application Command Class is wired)

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fel-x said:

Ignorance is the way to go ;)

LOL, you've made my day!

 

Please login or register to see this link.

 

From Thomas Gray's poem, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College (1742): "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

 

"Lack of knowledge results in happiness; it is more comfortable not to know certain things."

 

1 minute ago, tinman said:

COMMAND_CLASS_APPLICATION_STATUS - both might generate that "Application rejected request" message

That was what I was thinking as well, thanks for confirming that. IMHO that message is not intended to be visible to end users, because either it should be handled through retry or considered a fatal failure, which also should be handled, but it is good to know because it (somewhat) explains the delays during inclusion ?

 

For those wanting to play along at home, it is in the public spec of Z-Wave and COMMAND_CLASS_APPLICATION_STATUS is rather new and tries to solve a very old problem with Z-Wave: before this CC a device was only required to accept a message, but it could silently ignore it (eg because it was busy). So they added a function to report this kind of behaviour.

 

SDS13782 Z-Wave Management Command Class Specification

 

4.2.2 Application Busy Command
The Application Busy Command used to instruct a node that the node that it is trying to communicate
with is busy and is unable to service the request right now.

 

4.2.3 Application Rejected Request Command
All supported commands are typically executed unconditionally and the only handshake is
acknowledgement on the protocol level. Some applications can however be in a state where the
application rejects to execute a supported command. The Application Rejected Request Command used
to instruct a node that the command was rejected by the application in the receiving node.

 

BTW the word "application" is Z-Wave speak here and it means "the program running on the module". This is in contrast to (the word) "protocol" which means "everything handled behind the scenes by the Z-Wave protocol.

 

But this still leaves the question somewhat unanswered: why would a "power plug" or a "Aeotec HEM Gen 5" send such a status? What is HCx doing that the device does not like?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, petergebruers said:

But this still leaves the question somewhat unanswered: why would a "power plug" or a "Aeotec HEM Gen 5" send such a status? What is HCx doing that the device does not like?

If someone has a Zniffer capture of the (complete) inclusion process, I might be able to answer that question. It is worth trying, but don't exclude and include, only to satisfy my curiosity. ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Bit old sorry, but, I assumed it was a newer Z+ talking to old chipset.

I only noticed it in relation to newer items, assumed they were trying to be more clever than HC2 .. but all totally anecdotal.

 

Cheers,

al.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...