Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Virtual device support #161

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from
Closed

Virtual device support #161

wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

derjoerg
Copy link
Collaborator

This closes #134.

I totally re-thought the "virtual device" problematic, especially regarding a HA integration.

After thinking about extremely complex triggers and actions, I think - at the end - it is way easier. 🤞

The two current implemented virtual devices:

  • VirtualWindowDoorSensor
    • This is in HA nothing else than a switch, turning it on in HA will turn it on in F@H and the other way round
  • VirtualSwitchActuator
    • This is a bit more complex as we have a two-way communication
    • The first device in HA will be a switch, turning it on in HA will turn it on in F@H and the other way round
    • The second (!!!) device in HA will be a binary_sensor, turning it on in F@H will turn it on in HA. And here the advanced user needs to create an automation (if binary_sensor is turned on [check whatever is needed] and finally turn on the switch
  • I think this also totally complies with the way F@H defines virtual devices -> totally external controlled

@derjoerg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Virtual devices are really hard work 😢

After a test implementation in the HA-integration things need to be changed again

@derjoerg derjoerg closed this Jan 29, 2025
@kingsleyadam
Copy link
Owner

Virtual devices are really hard work 😢

After a test implementation in the HA-integration things need to be changed again

That was my initial thought when looking through virtual devices. I wondered if it was worth the time and effort vs how much they would be used.

@derjoerg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

derjoerg commented Feb 7, 2025

Virtual devices are really hard work 😢
After a test implementation in the HA-integration things need to be changed again

That was my initial thought when looking through virtual devices. I wondered if it was worth the time and effort vs how much they would be used.

I have one last plan I'm currently building, if this also will be a dead end, I'll give up

@derjoerg
Copy link
Collaborator Author

That was my initial thought when looking through virtual devices. I wondered if it was worth the time and effort vs how much they would be used.

My main intention for this is, that the virtual devices are the only reason I still have a Node-Red instance running, which I want to get rid off. Virtual devices are - even advanced - an integrated concept of F@H. This library should - if somehow possible - also support this to make it THE python library for F@H 😉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@kingsleyadam kingsleyadam Awaiting requested review from kingsleyadam kingsleyadam is a code owner

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Handling of virtual devices need to be modified
2 participants
@derjoerg @kingsleyadam