Stop being reasonable!
I had to stop sharpening my pitchfork.
if there are users with a lot of entities (+4000 I guess) and using Mac Desktop browser (or Mac HA app for that matter), please check the entities dashboard and see if it populates?
Somehow since the 2024.6 beta I can no longer, or at the very best extremely laggy and intermittently, see the entities anymore.
Of those 4, Integrations seems best, and Helpers do ok-ish too (only 500+ or so, so that might explain it is more responsive)
Devices is already noticeably slower, but does populate the list. Entities remains empty 99% of the efforts, using Chrome, Safari, Firefox and Edge, and the Mac HA app.
Can only list the entities in my iPhone iOS app…
up to the last 2024.5.8 all went buttery smooth, and extremely responsive.
ofc I did check the logs, and there is nothing obvious, and yes, I did disable several plugins/custom cards and restarted.
somehow the ever increasing number of entities doesn’t seem to help (as it doesnt for the dev tools states either, even though that does populate after waiting some time)
Only have 1500 entities but both the device and entity list populate immediately for me in the Mac app and browser. 
I am wondering this, too.
I have installed browser_mod to solve this problem, but it also has some other nice features, so maybe I keep it anyway (assuming the new functionality solves the stated problem).
I keep it around as a way to easily find new devices when they pop up.
With this update the cards for my lights (tile, entity, and light cards) are all now displaying brightness as a level (i.e. 0-255) rather than as a percentage as they were previously. Has anybody else noticed this? Is this intentional, and is there a way to change it back? I find percentages are better for an “at a glance” picture of a light’s setting than the level number.
EDIT: Moved post about AI assistant to the comments for AI agents blog post:
OK. I give up. 2024.6.3 has these changes listed:
Bump uiprotect to 0.10.1 (@bdraco - #119327)
Bump uiprotect to 0.13.0 (@bdraco - #119344)
Bump uiprotect to 1.0.0 (@bdraco - #119415)
Bump uiprotect to v1.0.1 (@ep1cman - #119436)
Bump uiprotect to 1.1.0 (@bdraco - #119449)
Bump uiprotect to 1.2.1 (@bdraco - #119620)
Bump uiprotect to 1.4.1 (@bdraco - #119653)
Bump uiprotect to 1.6.0 (@bdraco - #119661)
Bump uiprotect to 1.7.1 (@bdraco - #119694)
Bump uiprotect to 1.7.2 (@bdraco - #119705)
(1) What is “uiprotect”?
(2) What has changed?
(3) How might this impact my system?
A search of this forum shows exactly one reference to uiprotect, in a thread about Teslas.
Clicking on a couple of those links in the change log turned up nothing I could construe as an answer to any of my three questions, above.
With all the “dumbing down” work being done in HA to make the UI easier for beginners, you’d think there would be some thought given to helping them understand how updates might affect them. We tend to give them a hard time here if they don’t read the change notes. It seems to me that the least we could do is make those notes comprehensible.
2 Likes
https://github.com/uilibs/uiprotect
https://github.com/uilibs/uiprotect/releases
Only if you use the Unifi integration
Generally upstream release notes aren’t pulled in because they’re often not that helpful to non-developers.
It took me 3 clicks from the blog post to get to this. No typing, no searching, no scrolling, just reading the linked areas. Hope it answers your question.
Oh, I see @Tinkerer has beat me to it. Teach a man to fish as they say.
3 Likes
Regarding OWM and the need to enter a CC# even if you set a limit of 1,000 calls per day, does anybody else think that OWM now requiring that for 3.0 when it wasn’t for 2.5 suspicious? I’ve searched on their site for “how to cancel”, but found nothing. Does anybody know the procedure to do so? Has anybody set this up with the 1,000 daily limit and found it works as advertised?
I’m also curious why HA didn’t choose to use the Professional 60 calls per minute free tier, which seems like an equal or better solution.
I noticed the same thing and even wrote a draft of a post here. But then I deleted it, because I expected reactions stating that all is fine, because it’s just 3 clicks away. So writing about this seemed not really productive.
However, since you did bring the topic, I want to voice my support.
It is especially jarring, because the main update changelog is so very nicely written. I write public changelogs in my work, so I know how much work, skill and experience must be behind that. The result may look effortless, but I bet it isn’t.
So the main update is written very well, with great effort taken to make it nice read even for people completely new to HA. But then the patches are just copy pasted list from github. And I get it, writing a proper nice changelog for them would be time consuming and would have to delay the patch. So I understand if this can’t be done.
Still, I think the feedback is valid and it’s good to share.
So how do I think this specific case for uiprotect would be handled in a perfect world?
- All those entries should be merged into one.
- A human readable sentence would state that UniFi Protect integration was updated. It can mention that the uiprotect version was updated from 0.4.1 to 1.7.2.
- Some hint on what was changed (was it bugfixes, performance improvement, code optimization, new feature support), doesn’t need to be super detailed. The main point is so that users can figure out if it’s something that affects them and if they should check the details.
- A link to the full changelog:
Comparing v0.4.1...v1.7.2 · uilibs/uiprotect · GitHub
Now, as noted above, I’m perfectly aware this takes time and effort, and so the answer could very well be that it won’t be done. This is just the uiprotect example, it would look different for other cases, where a changelog may not be available at all. For example, this one:
here the dev did write what this was for specifically, this could have been basically copied:
Update the goodwe library to 0.3.6, bringing fix to meter export values to ETT/ESN inverters.
while this one is again different:
as it says:
Bump buienradar library to 1.0.6 to resolve #118403
and for this specific case I think the patch notes should just directly have the #118403 bugfix.
So, to sum up, a lot of work, I get it if it won’t be done. But please, do not say it’s all good as it is and devaluate the feedback we are sharing. We wouldn’t be sharing it if it didn’t bother us. Thank you.
7 Likes
I suspect this is the case. I know you can’t force volunteers to “waste” their time writing one sentence to document their change. I know some people take no pride in their work.
I guess what surprises me is the number of people here who spring to defend this practice.
2 Likes
There’s almost no chance this will be done because all that would change is:
Bumped abc to 1.2.3.
would change to
Bumped abc to 1.2.3 for minor enhancements and bug fixes.
The only time notable changes are mentioned are when things drastically change. Otherwise it’s always safe to assume that bumped software contains minor bug fixes and enhancements.
Nevermind the fact that it takes upwards of 8 days to create the current release notes with 1 main author and ~100 editors.
It always amuses me that the people who want these types of changes are missing from both the beta and release note creation process. You’re welcome to join and assist with things like this. It’s by far the easiest way to contribute to HA.
10 Likes
No, because it’s pretty standard practice. OWM could impose a hard limit and require no CC, or make it more flexible as they have (arguing service continuity might be more important for some). Google and many other vendors do exactly the same. If you use the Google Travel HA integration you’d see it’s the same story. 1000 free calls is pretty liberal. People complaining about how a company conduct their business when they get a free service seems somewhat inappropriate.
3 Likes
Well, having to provide a credit card for a FREE service that you fully intend to set a usage limit for, seems somewhat inappropriate (to me). Especially given how often companies get hacked and credit cards get stolen.
2 Likes
Nobody’s forcing you to use them. They can conduct their business any way they like and you can choose who to use.
1 Like
Can you use https://privacy.com/ and just set a one vendor card and the limit to low amount? I’ve not done that, but it seems like it would work, and would mitigate exposure of stolen info.
My question was if anybody else thought requiring a credit card number for a service that WAS (and still IS) free, suspicious. You clearly don’t and that is OK. What’s not OK is you chastising me for pointing it out. I’ve been around the block, probably more times than you. I know how things work. And why. I don’t have to like it.
And to your point, no, I don’t use it any longer, not that neither you nor OWM will care. It’s just another service I no longer use in HA, one in a growing list.
1 Like
You’re good at “fixing” other people’s comments, I’ve noticed.
That little image is helpful and all, but doesn’t that appear only AFTER you’ve subscribed? Odd they don’t mention how easy it is to cancel before requiring your CC #. Probably just an oversight. 