My feature request just got closed because this exists.
But this one has existed for a long time and no one has seeming shown interest in developing this.
Is there a particular reason why?
I feel the biggest weakness of homeassistant is the developers are very technical and undervalue the need for gui and documentation that is non technical friendly whilst telling anyone asking that they should make it themselves.
If HA is to succeed it needs to embrace the technically challenged needs of the majority.
I totally agree this would add good value. It would be nice if you can group your automations for a “location” (i.e. Garden) or a “topic” (i.e. lights or climate etc) or apply tags to it and filter the list.
For now I am going to rename everything with a fixed naming convention, but this is not a real nice solution as the names can get very long: i.e.
Outdoor-Garden-Lawnmower-ChargeOff
I was wondering if there could be consideration to break the automations down into either catagories or rooms for example. I have loads of Automations and as I get more it becomes harder to find them again for making changes.
Rather than just a list it would be great if they can be sorted into catagories or different rooms relative to where the automation takes place.
That wil let you set different filters but it then cuts out everything else. It would be nice to see a complete automations list but seperating it out into different areas or catagories for example.
It sort of 50% does what I wanted but its annoying because you then have to filter everytime you go into the automations, it would better if you can make it persistent.
I would suggest a ‘modern’ approach using tags or labels. Let users create their own tags, that can be used with the existing filter options. So you can sort and arrange all automations in any dimension you can think of. Not only by room or device type, also ‘time of day’, ‘connection’, ‘users involved’, ‘all holiday-automations’ etc.
Issues on Github are in principle just a plain listing, however by adding labels they can be filtered on things like ‘bugs’, ‘improvements’, ‘feature requests’ or the technology or language (‘zigbee’, ‘php’) or the ‘the integration’. Being able to assign multiple labels you can create combined filters: ‘bugs’ on ‘integration:abc’ that have a ‘quick-fix’
The filter-option is already there in the UI for automations, it just needs some option to add custom labels next to the existing ones. For example I would add all my areas as a label, the technology (I use Zigbee, Z wave, Wifi and cloud), the type (lighting, climate, media) and involved users (everyone, myself, the wife etc.)
With categories, folders or a fold-structure you can only sort the automation in one dimension (only by type, or only by area, or only by technology etc.). With labels you can have multiple dimensions and even combine them.
I work in IT, and always looking for most result with least effort . Redesign of the automations page is far more work than better utilizing the existing filter function. So this can be realized much faster. So start with custom filters in the existing filter-menu and adding the option of labels/tags for automations. Later on this could be used for a redesign, with for example an option for a ‘starting filter’ when opening the page or having buttons on top of the page for quick access.
With the risk of starting a long and difficult discussion: folder structures (especially nested folder structures) are a thing of the past . This sounds harsh, I’ll explain: working with folders and nesting is a way of working that was introduced when people started to digitalize their paper administration. So they literally copied their papers, folders and cabinets into the computer in the same structure. However, the main advantage of digital over hardcopy is that digital items can have multiple (virtual) relations at the same time while paper can only be at one place a time. Given this fact, you can have multiple views and entries to the exact same items. When doing so, you take full advantage of working digital. When only using one view (folderstructure), you’re limiting yourself.
As one of my tutors said: it is like having a carriage, removing the horse and adding an engine. When you want to use the full potential of the engine, you need to design and build a car around it. That’s how they started with cars, and that’s what we need to do with working digital. Let go of folders, and start thinking in multiple views and dimensions.
So, keep the long listing of automations and add smart ways of filtering and viewing.
I tend to disagree. Using only filters adds one (needless) step: typing in fitler words. WIth folders you just click on wanted folder and you’re there. Imagine that you have … say, a couple of hundred automations. It’s impossible to know how you named it all in order to activate a filter. Ok, you must strictly “stick to the plan” and name them accordingly. But only one mistake in naming and you’ll search your automation for ages…
If you have them in folders you’ll find them pretty quick.
And, i strongly doubt that folders are “thing of the past”… all programs i know use folders…
Why libraries have books sorted by topic? It’s the same here… they have “folders” in order to find yours in a several thousand collection. Ok, sure, you COULD have a PC lying there, enter wanted book, and PC wil tell you that it’s in a shelf 47B. But that’s just another (needless) step.
I’m just a causal user, no IT expert here. That said, I’m certainly open to new visual organization structures, but your example seems like just another tagging filter (until you get to the part of the visual example for the landing page) which IMO is not a visualized organizational structure.
In the 4 lists under “Automations and Scenes” in configuration , it would give a better overview if it was possible to place the different automations, scenes, scripts and helpers in different groups. It should then be possible to view the lists as “All” or “By Group/tag” or possible to filter.
The group, could also be a label or a tag or something like that.
Something that I think could be useful is being able to organize your Automations/Scripts in folders. For example I have a couple Automations that gets triggered when I get home. I would love to keep these Automations in folders to have a easier way to look through them instead of having them in a list with all other automations.
. Redesign of the automations page is far more work than better utilizing the existing filter function. So this can be realized much faster. So start with custom filters in the existing filter-menu and adding the option of labels/tags for automations. Later on this could be used for a redesign, with for example an option for a ‘starting filter’ when opening the page or having buttons on top of the page for quick access.
. This sounds harsh, I’ll explain: working with folders and nesting is a way of working that was introduced when people started to digitalize their paper administration. So they literally copied their papers, folders and cabinets into the computer in the same structure. However, the main advantage of digital over hardcopy is that digital items can have multiple (virtual) relations at the same time while paper can only be at one place a time. Given this fact, you can have multiple views and entries to the exact same items. When doing so, you take full advantage of working digital. When only using one view (folderstructure), you’re limiting yourself.