Guzz
Guzz
> I think that semantic versioning is more useful. With this, we can backport (and release) bugfixes to old stable versions. I totally agree with @gerw
I'm not familiar with `await` and `asyncio`, but shouldn't it be enough to add an `await` to the uses of `socket`? Allowing a break before each function call would, in...
> * Include functions like `get_hot_water_temperature()` to `Luxtronik`. [In this case, an instance of `Luxtronik` needs to cache the last reading, cf. Why do you need to cache the last...
> * These methods cache the changes, which are consequently written by a call to `write()`. Optionally, each `set_*` method could have a parameter `write_immediately` (default value `False`), with the...
If we still support old names, do we also have to support older luxtronik firmware versions? For example the used-energy-value is only available within the (current) latest firmware version. But...
I am aware that this question was a bit "off-topic". However, the library version is usually connected to the firmware version. It was also more of a question whether it...
Normally I would close the socket and return the error status using the return parameter. The user then has to handle the error. But that's almost like an "API change".
@BenPru: Are you satisfied with the changes?
Can someone merge the branch?
> * it is cleaner to have the compatibilities in an extra file, Everyone has their own coding style :) In my opinion, an additional file is more difficult to...