I have quite a few Photons that I purchased for a project and it seems that a lot of them aren’t being recognized as Photons in particle.build.io or in the desktop IDE (what I’m using primarily to edit). It wouldn’t initially concern me except that when I flash from the IDE a firmware file appears briefly with a “core_” prefix on it. This is a typical file created when building from the CLI and you compile for core.
I haven’t noticed any rampant issues with my code or anything, but I’ve reverted to using the command line to compile and flash. This obviously adds some time to my development. Is there a general concern I should have about this and can I set it to always build for Photon in the IDE or something?
How long ago is it that you claimed the devices to your account?
What does particle list tell you about these device?
If particle list reports Photons, try the CLEAR CACHE button in the Particle Build settings tab, close the browser open again, clear the browser cache and try again. Or try incognito mode of your browser first.
I have claimed them all within the last 2 weeks. I did move them from one account to another. Particle list lists all of the devices and is consistent with the IDE and the web. Those that are a Photon elsewhere have the (Photon) next to them, while the others don’t.
Looks like this for those that are "Other"
d-002 [CORE ID] is offline
To followup on this, I did contact Particle and they pointed me in the right direction. I had used the wrong product id (from the top of the dashboard) in that version of the firmware, but wasn’t using the dashboard to distribute so I never noticed. Also, for future reference if you use the build / web interface the list will show up with the name of your product that you set in the dashboard vs just “Other” if it’s wrong. If you use the IDE or CLI you won’t get any reference to the product, but it will stop showing (Photon) next to the name if you list your devices.
I’m doing the two legged approach to registration and had to switch accounts a few times during development, so it was my fault for not catching the inconsistent PRODUCT_ID in my firmware.