Bug in Energy Panel Billing periods comparison

[fuser99 16]

Hello,

 

It looks like there's a bug in the billing periods comparison calculation: that value should be negative in this case because the previous usage was higher than the current usage.

I've attached the screenshot for clarification.

Does anyone else experience the same behaviour?

Thank you.

Please login or register to see this attachment.

[m.roszak 536]

it compares the consumption to the specific day in history - it is explained in the tooltip.

So, 203,9kWh is a summary consumption from the current period when you are opening the tab, compared to the same number of days from the last period (not the whole period - it does not make sense to compare the current still running period to the finished previous one).

So if 203 kWh is for example consumption from 1st May to 20th May, it is being compared to consumption from 1st April to 20th April (assuming you have 1 month period starting from the first day of the month). 

[fuser99 16]

On 5/20/2024 at 2:33 PM, m.roszak said:

it compares the consumption to the specific day in history - it is explained in the tooltip.

So, 203,9kWh is a summary consumption from the current period when you are opening the tab, compared to the same number of days from the last period (not the whole period - it does not make sense to compare the current still running period to the finished previous one).

So if 203 kWh is for example consumption from 1st May to 20th May, it is being compared to consumption from 1st April to 20th April (assuming you have 1 month period starting from the first day of the month). 

I understand exactly what it does but if you look close to the capture (I attached a new one) the comparison arrow is UP, meaning that this current period the consumption was higher than previous one, which is not true. The arrow should be pointing down because the current period, the consumption is lower than the previous period.

 

Please login or register to see this attachment.

[m.roszak 536]

Ah, sorry - you are right, my bad.

I will report this, thanks. 

[fuser99 16]

1 hour ago, m.roszak said:

Ah, sorry - you are right, my bad.

I will report this, thanks. 

 

Thank you for support. Hope it will be fixed in the next update.

[fuser99 16]

On 5/22/2024 at 12:45 PM, m.roszak said:

Ah, sorry - you are right, my bad.

I will report this, thanks. 

Looks like the fix was not pushed to the latest update.

 

[m.roszak 536]

No, not yet.
This version was during internal tests for some time now - the next version should solve the issue.
 

[fuser99 16]

4 hours ago, m.roszak said:

No, not yet.
This version was during internal tests for some time now - the next version should solve the issue.
 

OK. Thank you.

[fuser99 16]

On 5/27/2024 at 5:39 PM, m.roszak said:

No, not yet.
This version was during internal tests for some time now - the next version should solve the issue.
 

Hello,

It looks like this bug is still not fixed the the latest firmware 5.161.15 (beta) .

 

[m.roszak 536]

Yes, true.
It has a bit of low priority, we have some more urgent things fixed in this beta.

I suspect that this will be fixed in 5.171. 
 

[fuser99 16]

 

On 7/29/2024 at 2:59 PM, m.roszak said:

Yes, true.
It has a bit of low priority, we have some more urgent things fixed in this beta.

I suspect that this will be fixed in 5.171. 
 

Looks like the bug is not yet fixed. Is it going to be fixed soon ?