Open Jpsy opened 4 years ago
@Jpsy I'm really curious about all automations you have running since you're using quite some attributes of all entities :-)
I personally don't have any automations yet relying on these attributes.
As far as I remember I didn't condense any data into one datafield, but there are quite some differences between the api used by the official app at the time I did the reverse engineering. There was even data available which isn't in the official API.
I do see the value of this commodity attribute, on the other hand maybe keep the implementation "pure" and create a "virtual sensor" in HASS.
Bottom line, no strong preference from my side.
I think it makes sense, but I haven't thought too much about it. Perhaps just call it status
?
Could you open an issue in the new repository (py-smart-gardena/hass-gardena-smart-system) and continue there please?
https://github.com/py-smart-gardena/hass-gardena-smart-system/pull/13
So this issue can be closed.
RFC for a new, combined attribute for mower devices. I especially ask @osks and @wijnandtop here for feedback.
Currently we have two attributes that both provide information about the current state of the mower:
activity
andlast_error_code
. The separation is somewhat artificial, as whenever there is a real error,activity
will switch toNONE
. Consider the following examples...Example: Normal operation
Example: Error condition
In my automations I find myself again and again looking at both attributes to derive the full mower status. In the previous custom component of @wijnandtop we had that information condensed into a single data point - the state of the mower. Working on my automations I come to the conclusion that this was closer to reality than spreading the information over two attributes.
My suggestion is to add (!) a third attribute that will compile the information of both attributes into one. When
activity != "NONE"
, the new attribute would copyactivity
. Otherwise it would containlast_error_code
. The existing attributes would not be touched or removed. We would not lose anything and would gain a condensed data endpoint.Does this make sense to you? If you agree, what would be your proposals for the attribute name - e.g.
activity_or_error
,combined_status
,status_unified
, ...?Please comment. I would create the code and issue a PR.