Seconded. It'll also make it easier for those interested to keep track of issues uncovered ....
1 Like
Every week a new user posts a "new" topic asking why their Zwave lock isn't working, at which the entire conversation gets rehashed again and again, having a dedicated thread will not prevent this.
This thread regarding the lack of Zwave certification, is an excellent starting point at diagnosing a potential problem with the implementation of Zwave, which (may/maynot) be effecting the locks issue (which the OP also mentions as the purpose of resolving)
You will find out that there are users among this platform that will cheerlead for the defense of this platform at even the slightest criticism of it, even when the criticism is 100% valid. Nothing will stop this, it's the nature of humans, unlike them having the capacity to, I've learned to ignore most of them.
The criticism is 100% valid to you. But to convince someone of something they do not believe, it requires substantiated fact based in sound theory. I'm not saying that your findings are inaccurate, but they are presented as fact and obvious when in fact they are based on a misunderstanding of the protocol...at least that's what I have gathered based on my objective reading of these posts. Others who try to argue that your assertions may be misguided are told they are "just fanboys" or blindly loyal should be offended. They aren't necessarily saying you are wrong..just that your method and conclusions are flawed. As we argue, we need to take the counterpoints in stride and we may learn something as we teach. There is no need to be aggressive and accusatory in the discussion. You will find that others will be a lot more receptive to your theories if they were presented with a little humility.
7 Likes
What's odd here is it appears you are reference those that state having a repeater is necessary for a lock to function.
That is a complete misunderstanding of the protocol, it is factually inaccurate, the hub is supposed to be capable of controlling end devices. If locks "required" a repeater to function a repeater would be provided with them. The reason they are not provided with them is because the protocol does NOT require it.
I apologize for the use of the word, but your rantings will get you ignored rather than end up being constructive. @stephack suggestions for a way to be constructive about this was rebuffed with a further rant.
I have never put anyone in my muted list but this just isn't helpful to anyone.
2 Likes
This can't be good for your health to continue this conversation???
Locks actually are a bit special here--being that they are sleepy devices that are still expected to respond to commands quickly, having not just a repeater but a beaming repeater (most recently certified devices should be, but check the conformance doc to be sure) is actually quite helpful for them. This is true regardless of distance from the hub. It will take work off the hub and also strengthen your Z-Wave mesh. Both of these are good ideas, and while not required, they are good ideas that most people would do well to follow. (Further reading: FAQ: why would I need another beaming repeater if my zwave lock is already close to my hub? - FAQ - SmartThings Community)
That being said, I'm not sure where the premise that Z-Wave device manufacturers are required to include anything "required" for the device came from. They all require controllers to work unless you want to use direct association, but pretty much all of them come with neither. 
2 Likes
The hub itself is supposed to be capable of performing that function independently.
I'm done here. I can only assume you're just not reading what people write:
2 Likes
Yes, you confirmed exactly what I posted except in paragraph form, trying to play both sides insinuating that beaming repeaters are "helpful" but admitting they are not required. Thanks
1 Like
@bcopeland @april.brandt ...rally the troops. I think I found someone in need of the legendary 
hug.
For others searching for help, please reach out here
9 Likes
The reason this is necessary is because almost everytime a user derails the current thread with posts like this.
https://community.hubitat.com/t/hubitat-z-wave-plus-certification-id/35383/295?u=ipostthings
Causing the current thread to go dormant and users end up creating a brand new one starting the cycle over and over again.
Yes..THAT is the reason...obviously... 
8 Likes
When does a thread cross from debate chamber to timeout room territory? This thread is just a waste of time at this point...
But then why can’t I stop reading it?
8 Likes
Same reason that car wrecks that are off the motorway still slow traffic.
8 Likes
5 Likes
OMG stahp it. You two. Can't we just all ... be friends?
9 Likes
I think this thread finally got derailed
3 Likes
The IRONY in moderators splitting this thread by doing so literally just created one more "separate" negative thread to add to the collection already archived on this subject in the forum.
2 Likes
