Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

4.0.3 ignores second system Broadcastify keys #548

Open
robertlynch3 opened this issue Nov 8, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

4.0.3 ignores second system Broadcastify keys #548

robertlynch3 opened this issue Nov 8, 2021 · 1 comment

Comments

@robertlynch3
Copy link

I am using two systems (one conventional, one TRS) that are one of the same public safety system. They are two separate Broadcastify nodes, but the same OpenMhz system.

In 3.x, Trunk-recorder uploaded them successfully to their respective Broadcastify nodes, but now in 4.0.3 they are both uploaded to the first system's node.

The system is using the same shortName as to upload them to the correct OpenMhz system.
As per our conversation on Gitter, the same shortName is proven to be the issue.

I propose two solutions:

  1. The system becomes identified by the index in the systems list
  2. Add an optional openmhzShortName that is used for OpenMhz upload, if it is not defined, use the shortName key.
"systems": [{
        "control_channels": [700000000, 701000000, 702000000, 703000000],
        "type": "p25",
        "shortName": "octrs",
        "audioArchive": "false",
        "recordUnknown":"true",
        "broadcastifyApiKey":"123-abc",
        "broadcastifySystemId":"1",
        "talkgroupsFile": "talkgroups.csv",
        "apiKey": "def-345",
        "talkgroupDisplayFormat":"id_tag"
    },
    {
        "channels": [157000000, 158000000],
        "type": "conventional",
        "squelch": -40,
        "decodeMDC": "true",
        "shortName": "octrs",
        "broadcastifyApiKey":"abc-123",
        "broadcastifySystemId":"2",
        "alphatags":["Channel 1","Channel 2"],
        "apiKey": "def-345"
    }
@robotastic
Copy link
Owner

Thanks for creating an issue for this! Both solutions make sense to me. I am going to check out the first on because it wouldn't require any changes to the config.json files for folks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants