A bit fed up with some restrictions caused by the UI

[klogg]

I must say I’m getting a bit fed up with some of the restrictions caused by the UI.

In particular,

• entities in my Unify Integration that I can’t delete / remove,
• entities in my Sonos integration that I can’t delete / remove,
• a Samsung TV that appears twice…

It reminds me of when Windows went from using .ini files to a registry. Suddenly everything was hidden/protected from the user.

But at least Windows provided the registry editor.

Maybe this is the natural endpoint for ‘mature’ software?

Also I do know that I can disable entities…

But it is not clear to me what that actually means.

[m0wlheld (Christoph Dahlen)]

@klogg

But it is not clear to me what that actually means.

Disabled entities are still known to HA, but you will not be able to read information from them or control them. When using Lovelace in auto-mode, disabled entities will not be shown. When in configurative mode, you’ll get a nice yellow entry in your UI.

Btw: HA’s “registry” is still a series of text-files in the .storage-folder. You can stop HA, then manipulate those files (backup first) and restart HA.

[tom_l]

@klogg

• entities in my Unify Integration that I can’t delete / remove,
• entities in my Sonos integration that I can’t delete / remove,

Balloob’s response:

WTH Delete devices from GUI

The idea is that devices are fully managed for you. They get created by integrations and get automatically removed when an integration is removed. If an integration is changing the devices it exposes (ie you remove a Hue bulb), it’s up to the integration to clean it up. If this doesn’t happen, it’s a bug! Integrations should clean it up. For MQTT we realized that this didn’t work, and so for MQTT there is a delete button. Deleting a device that is still “active” will re-appear on reboot.

@klogg

a Samsung TV that appears twice…

Be thankful that you only have two. I’ve seen forum posts saying they get a new Samsung TV device every time it is switched on (yes they had static IPs). Seems this integration has really gone to the dogs since moving to the UI.

[klogg]

Ok, I partially take it back…

I can see that Balloob’s response makes some sense and indeed as stated in that thread:

@Robban

UniFi integration should clean up after it self when the user remove a client from the controller.

the UniFi integration does seem to handle this (thanks Robban).

However the Sonos integration doesn’t and surely integrations shouldn’t be accepted to the ‘core’ of HA unless they are bug free (as far as can be expected, obviously) i.e. they perform as expected.

I suspect the Sonos (and Samsung) integrations precede the ‘storage’ configuration though…

Hey ho…

[tom_l]

@klogg

However the Sonos integration doesn’t and surely integrations shouldn’t be accepted to the ‘core’ of HA unless they are bug free (as far as can be expected, obviously) i.e. they perform as expected.

That would decimate the number of integrations. Maybe even more than 1 in 10 integrations I’ve tried have had serious issues. Some have issues that have been open for 3 years.

Too many issues not enough devs.

[klogg]

@tom_l

That would decimate the number of integrations.

@tom_l

Too many issues not enough devs.

Yeah sorry I was implying that with

@klogg

I suspect the Sonos (and Samsung) integrations precede the ‘storage’ configuration though…

I wasn’t explicit enough. I really meant that from now on, new integrations shouldn’t be accepted without this (maybe they aren’t?).

[Mutt (Muttley)]

@tom_l

Seems this integration [Samsung] has really gone to the dogs since moving to the UI

Amen ! … Though I’d put it much lower than ‘dogs’

[maxym]

@tom_l

That would decimate the number of integrations. Maybe even more than 1 in 10 integrations I’ve tried have had serious issues. Some have issues that have been open for 3 years.

Too many issues not enough devs.

I’m not sure it’s good approach. But it confirms my feelings. It affects user experience and then overal grade HA takes.
I admit some compromises must be done but in general quantity over quality is not considered good approach, isn’t it?

Maybe more strict attitude to components quality, with risk of their removal from HA can encourage devs? or maybe actual removal will create users demand enough to motivate devs?

[Robban]

Its actually in the integration quality scale Gold https://developers.home-assistant.io/docs/integration_quality_scale_index

[FreelancerJ]

Huh, I find it interesting that “internal” integrations don’t have a rating published. Hopefully that is due to internal integrations having higher barrier for entry/minimum requirements

[tom_l]

@FreelancerJ

Hopefully that is due to internal integrations having higher barrier for entry/minimum requirements

Nope.

The integration with a serious issue open for three years I was talking about…

It’s a core integration.

[FreelancerJ]

Ah rough. Wish I had the skills to contribute. I’m just the kind of person who would spend their spare time poking around obscure and old issues just for fun