[GH-ISSUE #177] Feature request: Option to not adopt newly seen tags #1195

New Issue

sascha_hemi · 2026-03-20T19:05:36+01:00

sascha_hemi commented

2026-03-20 19:05:36 +01:00

Originally created by @sknebel on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/OpenEPaperLink/OpenEPaperLink/issues/177

Originally assigned to: @nlimper on GitHub.

It would be nice to be able to tell the AP to only talk to displays it knows already (bonus: or it has been told explicitly to expect).

This has come up a bit in our hackspace with multiple people in parallel working on their projects and tags being grabbed by random APs instead of the one belonging to the same person as the tag. It would also be useful when bringing setups to events (e.g. I bet there's more than one group bringing APs + Tags to CCC-Congress now 🎉 )

A good way would be a checkbox somewhere that tells the AP to only talk to tags that it already has in its database, and ignore requests from unknown tags.

A bonus would be a command/API to add a specific tag MAC to the database without it being present, so once the tag appears and the AP sees it it will be accepted anyways. I could see this being more complicated since I'm not sure the way tags are managed is prepared to deal with tags where only the MAC is known but no other data/connection details yet.

Originally created by @sknebel on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/OpenEPaperLink/OpenEPaperLink/issues/177 Originally assigned to: @nlimper on GitHub. It would be nice to be able to tell the AP to only talk to displays it knows already (bonus: or it has been told explicitly to expect). This has come up a bit in our hackspace with multiple people in parallel working on their projects and tags being grabbed by random APs instead of the one belonging to the same person as the tag. It would also be useful when bringing setups to events (e.g. I bet there's more than one group bringing APs + Tags to CCC-Congress now :tada: ) A good way would be a checkbox somewhere that tells the AP to only talk to tags that it already has in its database, and ignore requests from unknown tags. A bonus would be a command/API to add a specific tag MAC to the database without it being present, so once the tag appears and the AP sees it it will be accepted anyways. I could see this being more complicated since I'm not sure the way tags are managed is prepared to deal with tags where only the MAC is known but no other data/connection details yet.

sascha_hemi added the enhancement label 2026-03-20 19:05:36 +01:00

sascha_hemi commented

2026-03-20 19:05:37 +01:00

@nlimper commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023):

Nice and useful idea.

@nlimper commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023): Nice and useful idea.

sascha_hemi commented

2026-03-20 19:05:37 +01:00

@jonasniesner commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023):

Another useful way this could be implemented is like the teach in function of ZigBee. Press a button in the web interface and for the next 60 seconds, all now tags will be added to the DB. After that, only tags in the DB are talked to.

@jonasniesner commented on GitHub (Dec 13, 2023): Another useful way this could be implemented is like the teach in function of ZigBee. Press a button in the web interface and for the next 60 seconds, all now tags will be added to the DB. After that, only tags in the DB are talked to.

sascha_hemi commented

2026-03-20 19:05:37 +01:00

@nlimper commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2024):

Not so fast ;-)
While with the 'Lock tag inventory' prevents a tag from showing up in your AP, this option currently doesn't prevent the connected C6 from answering to checkins. Therefore, you cannot run two seperate installs on the same channel yet. Once the C6 firmware get a bit more advanced, I planned to solve this as well. So, for that reason, I like to keep this issue open. It will take a while before this will be added though.

@nlimper commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2024): Not so fast ;-) While with the 'Lock tag inventory' prevents a tag from showing up in your AP, this option currently doesn't prevent the connected C6 from answering to checkins. Therefore, you cannot run two seperate installs on the same channel yet. Once the C6 firmware get a bit more advanced, I planned to solve this as well. So, for that reason, I like to keep this issue open. It will take a while before this will be added though.

Sign in to join this conversation.

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/OpenEPaperLink#1195