Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Hans, > > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 06:56:23 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> I noticed that currently the temp code prints a faults in the place where >> normally an alarm gets printed, and ignores alarms. I mimicked this for the >> fault support I added to the fan code. >> >> But is this wise, since the reading are bogus when a FAULT is raised, shouldn't >> the reading be omitted, just like were omitting the alarm? > > I agree that the current implementation doesn't make much sense and > can be confusing to the users. The "FAULT" statement should replace the > (invalid) measured value rather than the ALARM flag. Done, see 3.0.0 svn Regards, Hans
