HA discovers “something” (a physical device probably announced itself in the network, IDK, those are some technical details)
HA offers installing an integration
I’m assuming that after I install the integration, I will be able to add some devices via that integration (or the integration may “extends info” (add entities) on particular device(s), etc.).
Therefore: the FR is: let the user know “WHY” is HA recommending to install a particular integration (that, let’s say, it discovered a lightbulb WiZ A60 and the integration will allow me to add the device and its entities to HA).
No. I want to see what device triggered HA’s integration recommendation.
If it has to add entities first → that would be a technical detail. Maybe it has to, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe there’s an entirely new mechanism needed, so that it would be possible. Anyway, two different layers of abstraction: user interface and underlying engine inner-workings → I’m talking about the first, and you’re trying to force me to answer how to do the second (clearly not a person to be “asked” that).
I have but you aren’t explaining what you want to know.
Let me be painfully clear: You’ve asked that you want to know what device is creating the discovery.
Let me be painfully clear: The device itself is broadcasting the discovery information.
Let me be painfully clear: I think you really want to know “what integration is creating this discovery?”. But instead you’re insisting that isn’t the case.
Hopefully now you understand what I’m saying.
Devices broadcast their discovery information, that’s how they are discovered. This is done through integrations. There are a series of standards that devices use to broadcast their discovery.
A good example: Xiaomi BLE temperature sensors are Bluetooth BLE devices.
The Bluetooth integration discovers Bluetooth devices. When they get discovered, the Xiaomi integration will show up on the screen in the UI. I.e. 1 integrations is used to find your Bluetooth device: Bluetooth.
I’m not sure why you like to repeat the painfully world often → I don’t feel forum discussions should be/are painful in any way.
Anyway: YES. I want to to know what device triggered HA offering to install some integration (and probably the device itself later).
Cool, sure, kinda obvious.
Nope, I can see the integration. HA is presenting it to me. Again, screenshot, first post. It’s the matter integration. I know what. What I don’t know, is why is matter offered to me (the answer could be: WiZ A60 lightbulb could integrate via that).
Unfortunately, that’s techno-blah-blah for me at this point.
However “zeroconfig” works, there could be (would be great if there was) a way to see what device “wants to” (or “is available to”) be integrated into my HA instance, before I install some “cryptic” integrations.
I have to say painfully because you aren’t taking the time to understand what I’m saying. It’s like talking to a brick wall. I should just close this FR out because what you want is literally not possible because the tools that provide the discovery do not have the device information other than “it’s a matter device”.
TLDR: The technical mumbu jumbo matters, who would have thought?
Is it really true that a device broadcasting it’s there doesn’t say it’s name, even if it would be a non friendly ID? I mean, this FR seems pretty clear to me, even if I don’t really think it’s needed. You click “configure” and usually it tells you the device name on the very next screen anyway, and you can cancel if you don’t want to add that device to that integration.
I’ve also added that If it has to add entities first → that would be a technical detail. Maybe it has to, maybe it doesn’t. Maybe there’s an entirely new mechanism needed, so that it would be possible..
Hey, in the worst case scenario, HA could duplicate itself into a virtual machine, add the integration, add the device, read what the device it is, remove the virtual machine, and finally give the answer to the user: WiZ A60 lightbulb can be added → do you want to install Matter integration to do that?.
Yep, that would be kinda not ideal, but it would theoretically work and achieve what’s requested in the FR. But that’s worse case scenario, I’d say.
Hopefully, there are better ways. I just don’t think a FR on a forum is a good place to decide upon technical low level details on how to achieve the FR – just if it is desired. But that’s for another discussion…
Go look up the mdns packets and what they contain. Also understand that integrations don’t even know what the device does until the integration talks to it. All of this occurs AFTER you authenticate the device.
So he wants to put in something to show what the device can do before authenticating yet the devices won’t give you any information without authenticating.
You responded with what a user would think is possible, not what is possible. If you have to auth the device before setting it up, there’s literally no difference than what we have now. Just a confirmation box that says “Do you want to keep this?”.
I completely agree with the underlying problem that DvdNwk is highlighting here: it is often not clear to a user why certain integrations are being offered.
For example:
I have a “Tuya” integration discovered that then asks me to enter my “Smart Life or Tuya Smart user code”. But I don’t have a Smart Life or Tuya Smart account or devices. From research my best guess is that my Ledvance device is publicising itself on the network as a Tuya device as it seems to use Tuya functionality (again HA / IOT user here so probably using the wrong terminology). But I can’t connect the Ledvance device into the Tuya app so the integration is useless to me.
Matter has suddenly showed up in my list of discovered integrations. I can only assume that one of my devices (e.g. a Hue bulb) recently auto-updated its firmware and now is compatible with Matter. But as I already have all my hue bulbs in my HA, is this integration going to be useful to me, or be a duplication of effort? I don’t know, and the next screen after clicking “configure” doesn’t give any hints.
ANY kind of hint at why this integration is showing up - a device IP address, a Mac address, or similar - would help me work out if there’s something in my home I set up years ago that I forgot about / got recently updated and can now use in automations (wohoo!), or if I can safely ignore the integration as it’s useless to me.
Side Note: @DvdNwk while I really like out-of-the-box thinking , sadly I think something like a sandbox environment to auto-add these devices would be very much overkill for the desired goal of giving the user a little bit more clarity…
Also let’s follow this scenario through and say a device requires little or no authentication, so HA goes ahead and auto integrates it for you in this sandbox with no prior user input… it would be a security nightmare - do you really want a virtual HA instance to technically be able to control the energy usage of your heating system - or turn your hot water to scolding - without any user input? What if the integration had bad code and did something like this, or broke a device? It could wreak complete havoc, all without the user providing any specific consent.
So I don’t think such an idea would go anywhere!
HA actually makes it confusing to know the correct terminology to use:
When a new integration is discovered and offered, you get the notification:
Whereas what is actually meant is “new integration offered from a new, or potentially actually already-known-to-HA, device”…
@petro some friendly advice, I would recommend not to be harsh with well-meaning novice users on forums such as these, as for the @DvdNwk to have taken the time to write up this FR, there is clearly an underlying problem that is frustrating him and he’s trying to make the platform better for everyone.
Not everyone will share the same depth of understanding of the technicalities of the platform - or be invested in taking the time to learn these technicalities - and getting hung up on the technical details / simply shutting posts down as “not possible” leaves a bad taste in the mouth and leaves a frustrated users feeling “not heard”.
Petro was not trying to deny what the OP wanted, but just trying to say that in order to get the information needed, one would have to actually install the integration. So that is why this wish is not going to be fulfilled, no matter how desirable it is. He heard it, thought about it, and put in the effort to explain why that is not something that is bound to be realized. To me that is a helpful answer, even though it is not what you all want to hear.
This is an example of how, even if this was implemented, it would probably not work. For HA would tell you it thinks it is Tuya, not Ledvance. It would need to complete the right (Tuya?) integration installation in order to know how to get the information from the device, because HA is relying on integrations to understand and communicate with devices.
Sure, completely agree, I don’t recommend implementing anything like that.
It was a response to suggestions that what I’m proposing in the FR is impossible. At first I noted that “Maybe there’s an entirely new mechanism needed, so that it would be possible” – that should be enough, no need for virtual machines or whatever Anyway: possible. In many cases (not claiming “for all of cases”).
Actually, I’ve noticed a lot of torpedoing FRs on this forum. This is freakin ridiculous to me. I kinda anticipate such reactions already. Sadface.
Anyway, thanks for putting your voice in the discussion.
It seems to me that for a wifi device at least, it probably broadcasts a hostname and certainly a MAC address. There are plenty of MAC address databases HA could use to say "this device appears to be made with a shitty wifi chip commonly used by Tuya which is calling itself zhub_gateway_abcd7755
Fair enough, point taken and agreed that is helpful.
Nevertheless…
From my (non-technical) perspective, I get that it completely makes sense that only by installing the integration will you get the info “what will this integration provide” (the second part of the FR). But I truly suspect - per other users’ ideas on this thread and other threads too - that there could be a way to scrape or match what limited broadcast information there is to provide some additional context as to the device triggering the newly discovered integration (first part of the FR), e.g. the IP address that I could manually match to my other devices? MAC address matched to public databases?
Actually I’m perfectly happy to hear if something isn’t possible! That’s not my concern here
Rather, the point I was trying to make still stands: maybe the FR in its exact current formulation is technically impossible. Fair enough. But simply shutting it down as such prevents the opportunity for an engaging and useful discourse to explore “What’s the underlying problem here? Perhaps there are other ways to solve this?” to try and make the platform more user friendly for everyone.
Given HA’s establishment of their foundation, and their desire to commercialise and make their solution mass-marketable, I think the attitude of the HA open source community will need to adapt to achieve this goal…
Whereas until now the community have typically been very tech minded people who can get over some of the hurdles of a complicated UI, and I could imagine (correct me if in wrong) a majority of FRs have been related to new functionalities rather than improve User Experience… User experience FRs will need to be taken much more seriously going forwards.
I can pretty much guarantee you that if the community using HA in the future is more mass-market, if one person takes the effort to post about a frustration with their user experience, there will be 10s more behind it thinking the same thing, but not taking the effort to set up a forum account and provide their feedback!
This could actually be useful. My Unifi gear clearly has such a database in order to identify devices on my network, but it’s not super accurate (it’s reasonable though). Part of the reason is that many products are white labeled.
Where I’m getting stuck with this FR in general is that I typically plug in a new device, expecting a specific integration to detect it, so it’s not really a surprise to me. I can appreciate OP’s specific example of having a firmware upgrade and now having a seemingly new device show up, but even in that case I’d argue that you’d relate it to the last thing you did.
Makes sense @parautenbach that most times you’d expect an integration to appear when you plug in a new device.
I think another common use case though - and potentially increasingly common as HA goes on its journey to become more accessible and the smart home platform of choice - is the first time user who already had their devices set up in various separate apps, and now wants to consolidate things and installs HA in a “pre-existing” smart home environment.
I still have some suggested integrations that I haven’t quite gotten around to working out what device is triggering it.
, sadly I think something like a sandbox environment to auto-add these devices would be very much overkill for the desired goal of giving the user a little bit more clarity…
