I am a little confused right now and would like to know if the following behavior is intentional. I am using CPS 5.9.2 and have not tested this with other versions. Peripherals must explicitly state that they support ("yes") or maybe ("NotTested") support a peripheral. If they don't support ("No") or don't state a platform type at all then they will not be compatible with the PLC platform. What I mean that a peripheral with this .ood will not be compatible in ctrlX: <SupportedPlcTypes>
<PlcType name="BTC" supported="Yes" />
<PlcType name="RIL" supported="NotTested" />
</SupportedPlcTypes> On the other hand, it seems that objects (units, handlers, add-ons, bases ...) do not have this requirement. If a platform is not found in the ood it is allowed to be used in CPS anyway. Is inconsistency an oversight or intentional? Strictly speaking, if it's not state then a platform should probably be treated as incompatible for both objects and peripherals. However, it is probably a lot more convenient to treat them as "NotTested" for both types. Maybe a warning when reloading STD or adding such an object/peripheral would be nice for a certain grace period whenever a new platform is added. In my books, CXA still counts as a new platform 🤣
... View more