myUplink integration is missing electrical addition power

[ebner]

The problem

I've noticed that I can only see whether electrical addition is being used (active/blocked/...), but not at which power level (in kW) it currently is operating.

I just confirmed with the myUplink API that the correct parameter ID to use would be 43084, but I cannot find it anywhere in the code. Is there any particular reason why this is missing or is it just an oversight? Or perhaps due to differences between different models?

The heatpump in use is an F730 with the latest firmware.

What version of Home Assistant Core has the issue?

2024.11.2

What was the last working version of Home Assistant Core?

No response

What type of installation are you running?

Home Assistant Container

Integration causing the issue

myUplink

Link to integration documentation on our website

https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/myuplink

Diagnostics information

No response

Example YAML snippet

No response

Anything in the logs that might be useful for us?

No response

Additional information

No response

[home-assistant[bot]]

Hey there @pajzo, @astrandb, mind taking a look at this issue as it has been labeled with an integration (myuplink) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!

Code owner commands

Code owners of `myuplink` can trigger bot actions by commenting: - `@home-assistant close` Closes the issue. - `@home-assistant rename Awesome new title` Renames the issue. - `@home-assistant reopen` Reopen the issue. - `@home-assistant unassign myuplink` Removes the current integration label and assignees on the issue, add the integration domain after the command. - `@home-assistant add-label needs-more-information` Add a label (needs-more-information, problem in dependency, problem in custom component) to the issue. - `@home-assistant remove-label needs-more-information` Remove a label (needs-more-information, problem in dependency, problem in custom component) on the issue.

_{^{(message by CodeOwnersMention)}}

---

myuplink documentation myuplink source _{^{(message by IssueLinks)}}

[astrandb]

Interesting, many users are missing this sensor, including myself. My F730 is not reporting anything on 43084. Where did you find the info? Please also get a diagnostic download from the integration card. You can upload it to this issue or mail it to me at ake@strandberg.eu and I will compare with my own system.

[ebner]

I found 43084 here in this list: https://www.openhab.org/addons/bindings/nibeheatpump/#channels

I experimented with the internal API (the one being used by the web interface at https://myuplink.com) and got correct values by requesting https://internalapi.myuplink.com/v2/devices/<id>/points?parameters=43084. Payload looks like this:

 {
    "parameterId": "43084",
    "rawValue": 0,
    "kind": "Number",
    "value": 0,
    "unit": "kW",
    "isPending": false,
    "pendingValue": null,
    "timestamp": "2024-11-24T10:00:01+00:00",
    "minVal": null,
    "maxVal": null
  }

Diagnostics file is attached (config_entry-myuplink.json), but I noticed that it actually doesn't contain 43084, neither does a request against https://api.myuplink.com/v2/devices/<id>/points?parameters=43084. When I created this issue I assumed that the public API would return the same info as the internal API, but this is obviously not the case.

Seems as if myUpTech "forgot" to expose 43084 (and possibly other info?) through the public API.

[astrandb]

The public API is definitely different from the internal one. This integration is only using the public API and my personal opinion is that we should stick to that. We have an ongoing discussion with myUplink developers regarding the electric add-on info but there is no decision yet on the way forward.

[ebner]

Yes, I agree with you, and my intention was not to suggest to use the internal API, it was merely to show that the information is available, just not at the right place. When I created this issue I actually expected the public API to provide access to the same parameters as the internal one.

It's great to hear that you have an ongoing discussion with myUplink. Perhaps you can use this GH issue to emphasize that there is some demand for getting access to 43084 through the public API. :slightly_smiling_face: