AVNET model not compatible?

[stefan-hudelmaier]

Hi Jon,

I just stumbled over your project. I think it's a great idea to use DTDL for data simulators!

I tried it using the ./DTDLModels/thermostat.json model. It worked fine. I then wanted to use https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Azure/iot-plugandplay-models/main/dtmi/avnet/mt3620starterkit-1.json model (for the Azure Sphere AVNET Device). Unfortunately, no telemetry data was generated (but no error message was output either).

The output just stops at:

dbug: IoT.Simulator.Services.DeviceSimulationService[0]
      08/23/2021 16:30:41::logType:c2dmessages::simulated-device::Device listening to cloud to device messages.

When I strip the mt3620starterkit-1.json to a bare minimum:

{
  "@id": "dtmi:avnet:mt3620Starterkit;1",
  "@type": "Interface",
  "displayName": "StarterKitOutOfBoxExample",
  "@context": "dtmi:dtdl:context;2",
  "description": "Implements the interface for the Avnet Azure Sphere Starter Kit Out of Box example",
  "contents": [
    {
      "@type": "Telemetry",
      "description": "WiFi Received Signal Strength",
      "displayName": "WiFi Received Signal Strength",
      "name": "rssi",
      "schema": "double"
    }]
}

It works and produces telemetry data. However, if the original value of the @type property is used in the minimal example above (i.e. ["Telemetry"] as an array), it does not work and shows the above behavior.

I guess this type notation is not supported in your simulator yet?

[jonmikeli]

Hi Stefan,

Thanks for your message. Mmmm......let me take some time to debug what you mention properly.
I will give you news quite soon ;).

[jonmikeli]

Hi Stefan,

Just pushed an evolution to take into account the notation with arrays (which is linked to semantics and units).
Details here.

The set of unit tests and non-regression tests are ok but I will add more tests in the upcoming days (for instance, using the DTDL you provided). I will keep you posted.

Additionally, I will check with Microsoft if there is a "best practice" in terms of notations and/or if we should use the "array" notation all the time.

Feel free to reach out or report any other issue/feedback.

[stefan-hudelmaier]

Hi Jon,

I did a quick test with and without the array notation. Currently, the behavior seems to be as before: it works without the array and does not work with the array.

Looking forward to the next updates, thanks again for working on this.

From the examples that I looked at and the manufacturer-submitted models in the iot-plugandplay-models repo, it seems that the array notation is quite wide-spread.

[jonmikeli]

Hi @stefan-hudelmaier,

Sorry it took me some time to write you back.
Thank you for your answer.

There were actually many things involved in the issue after my last release. Telemetries with semantic and units were covered in the release of last week; the errors you encountered were due to other sources (commands with "rich" payloads (type object)).

The new version should solve all the mentioned issues.
New tests will be added (mainly to properties) but I already wanted to write you some updates.

[stefan-hudelmaier]

Hi @jonmikeli ,

I just tested your new release and it worked like a charm! Thank you so much for your swift fixes and improvements!