Covers: unsupported tilt feature

[OlwinFroon]

E2M cover entities seem to enable tilt angle support by default because it is a feature in the D2-05-00/02 EEP, regardless if the device really supports it or not.

As a result, these devices show up with a useless and nonfunctional tilt angle control in HA.

Right now, I disable these useless controls by adding this to my configuration.yaml:

homeassistant:
  customize:
    cover.my_cover_1:
      supported_features: 15
    cover.my_cover_2:
      supported_features: 15
    cover.my_cover_3:
      supported_features: 15

Features supported by the cover component are
OPEN = 1
CLOSE = 2
SET_POSITION = 4
STOP = 8
OPEN_TILT = 16
CLOSE_TILT = 32
STOP_TILT = 64
SET_TILT_POSITION = 128

See HERE

A cover device that supports only part of these should set the device's supported_features attribute accordingly by summing up the numbers attached to this list. 15 means 1+2+4+8 = everything not involving tilt.

I'm wondering if we could have this in the E2M configuration.
Perhaps an optional parameter to the device file?

[mak-gitdev]

Hi @OlwinFroon,

Sorry for the late reply.
I plan to solve such "issues" by introducing the possibility to add a device not by EEP but by device model.
Have a look at #88 for an example.

[OlwinFroon]

Nice, I can see the merits of your make-and-model approach.
It'll elegantly cover more complex devices like those Eltako things with more than one EEP,
or anything that generally applies to all devices of a certain model (like the lack of a tilt feature).

However, I hope you'd still allow for fine tuning in the device config file.
Minor deviations, like a shutters' the "cover1 or cover2" situation.
Device specific kinks like my one shutter that thinks "3" is "closed".
That might not be fixable with a model based config and belongs in the device configuration file instead.

[mak-gitdev]

@OlwinFroon,

That's exactly right ! You've perfectly understood the whole idea.

Models will cover complex devices and model specificities.
But as you've correctly guessed, that won't handle the cases you've outlined.
For the latter, I am still looking for an elegant way to handle them.