[FEATURE] Request UDM Pro SE Support

[jake-b]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. The UDM Pro SE does not use containers. The unifi-core runs directly, outside of a container. You can get things to work, and maybe someone will find this suggestion helpful to getting it working on their own UDM Pro SE, even if the suggestion is not accepted.

Describe the solution you'd like It should be pretty simple to update the script to detect a UDM Pro SE. Perhaps looking for the unifi-os or something (if it is not present, then its a SE?). Sadly I don't have access to a non-SE unit to compare and create this check properly.

Describe alternatives you've considered I've hacked up the scripts into something that works for me. Basically, new paths and a new restart command:

• UBIOS_CONTROLLER_CERT_PATH='/data/unifi-core/config' puts the certs in the right place
• systemctl restart unifi-core.service restarts the services (unifi-os restart is not available on the UDMPSE as there isn't a container)

Additional context

• The UDM Pro SE does not have podman so you need to install that first from udm-utilities
• Side note, I do get odd errors from the shell script such as:

  
  ./udm-le.sh: 17: ./udm-le.sh: Bad substitution
  ./udm-le.sh: 25: [: no: unexpected operator
  ./udm-le.sh: 29: [: no: unexpected operator
  ./udm-le.sh: 41: [: true: unexpected operator

I'm not sure if the `sh` interpreter is different on the UDMPSE or what.  Shell scripting make my head hurt. (`esac`, really? who created this syntax 😄)

[kchristensen]

So, I'm not opposed to (someone) adding support for the UDM Pro SE since it's my understanding that moving forward nothing in the UniFiOS world is going to be using docker any longer (limiting this project to just UDM Pro users more or less), but I don't have a UDM Pro SE to test with (nor am I actually even using a UDM Pro at the moment).

Long story short, if someone wants to take this on, in a way that is fully compatible on both devices without making the code impossible to read or manage, I'll merge it.

However, based on the scope of changes (no podman, possibly different shell interpreter entirely, quite possibly totally different file paths) it may very well be better off in its own project.

[jake-b]

Hehe, yeah, I hesitate to make pull request with a canonical "universal version" because I only have access to one piece of hardware myself.

Also my testing is lacking because I'm currently blacklisted for making too many cert requests :smile:

I'll close this. Thanks for your efforts in general. This definitely accelerated my getting it working for my use case.

If I ever get anything clean enough to contribute as a pull request, I'll do so!

Thanks again. I'll close this issue.