Changing channel breaks ESP-Now Master/Slave example

[skrenes]

Hardware:

Board: ESP32 D32 v1.0.0
Core Installation version: 1.0.1
IDE name: Arduino IDE
Flash Frequency: 80Mhz
PSRAM enabled: ?
Upload Speed: 921600
Computer OS: Mac OSX 10.14.4

Description:

In the basic example of ESP-Now (and I believe Multi-Slave example too), if the user changes the CHANNEL definitions from 1 to anything else, the example fails.

The definitions are here:

arduino-esp32/libraries/ESP32/examples/ESPNow/Basic/Slave/Slave.ino

Line 35 in da8b7c1

#define CHANNEL 1

arduino-esp32/libraries/ESP32/examples/ESPNow/Basic/Master/Master.ino

Line 37 in da8b7c1

#define CHANNEL 3

An example of the output from the master is this:

Found 42 devices 
Found a Slave.
1: Slave:30:AE:A4:8B:38:10 [30:AE:A4:8B:38:11] (-32)
Slave Found, processing..
Slave Status: Already Paired
Sending: 2
Send Status: Success
Last Packet Sent to: 30:ae:a4:8b:38:11
Last Packet Send Status: Delivery Fail

Notice the Delivery Fail status. The slave doesn't detect the master at all. Using a channel scan tool on my laptop, I see that the slave is in fact broadcasting its softAP on the properly defined channel. I don't know enough about the underlying SDK to determine what's going on within a reasonable amount of time. I'm hoping someone else can figure out what's going on, especially given how easy it is to replicate.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[stale]

This stale issue has been automatically closed. Thank you for your contributions.

[devSarry]

Can someone comment on why this occurs?

[skrenes]

Support seems none-existent.

[sheminasalam]

was this solved?

[VojtechBartoska]

This needs to be checked, reopening.

[VojtechBartoska]

Can you please take a look @me-no-dev?

[me-no-dev]

@VojtechBartoska I'm not sure what the problem was. it seems like OP tried to set one channel for master and another for slave and expected the code to work. Should be closed IMHO