Please Note This forum exists for community support for the Mango product family and the Radix IoT Platform. Although Radix IoT employees participate in this forum from time to time, there is no guarantee of a response to anything posted here, nor can Radix IoT, LLC guarantee the accuracy of any information expressed or conveyed. Specific project questions from customers with active support contracts are asked to send requests to support@radixiot.com.

Hi Stathis, The first this I would try is clearing your browser's cache and deleting your Mango/work/jsp directory, then reloading the page. If that doesn't work, open the developer tools on the page and check for errors, and watch Mango/logs/ma.log (or could be Mango/bin/logs/ma.log if you're on Windows) for errors as you load the page. Keep in mind that 2.6 is many versions ago, so a likely step in any resolution I would offer is to upgrade.

Hi Stathis, What would bring hesitation in upgrading the core? 2.7.12 is pretty nice! And 2.8 will be along very soon. To answer your question, maybe. Module's core version compatibility is determined in the module's module.properties file. You could change the core compatibility version and subvert the check if the module matches the core, but we would not offer support in such a circumstance and will not be surprised if there are compilation type errors (NoSuchMethodException, etc) or other unexpected issues in doing so.

The database would undergo the same updates it would if it were upgrading to 2.7. No the upgrades have not been updated to drop the tables, it slipped my mind to get "DROP IF EXISTS" into the mysql upgrade scripts, so you may have to drop the tables the upgrades create, or restore your MySQL dump into a new MySQL database.

Any object type CAN have a Description property, but it is optional. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with the fact that your code asks info on vendor object types, what was wrong was that when it got the unknown object response, it stopped any further requests. It should, if anything, report that error in the results, and carry on. If you are only asking for objects returned by an object_list request, you SHOULDN'T ever see that error, but BACNet manufacturers are notorious for not checking everything out, and bugs like this exist everywhere. The error just needs to be handled gracefully. In the case of those bugged devices, those points are AV's, but are not being reported as such properly in the object_list. I'm in communication with the manufacturer about getting the firmware fixed.

Works like a charm :D Thanks