Is there a way to permanently disable the “unsupported system” message? I acknowledge that HA devs would not support my system in case of issues coming up because of me running an extra docker container that’s for automation and doesn’t touch HA in any way, but can’t find a way to completely disable this warning from showing up. Clicking the ignore button seems to only hide it temporarily. It’s a personal annoyance to get excited for a red notification icon, thinking there’s an update for something, only to be presented with this message instead. Any assistance to do this would be greatly appreciated.
Yes it’s using supervised and HA is running in docker containers on Debian. After I added my other own custom docker container for a personal app I developed, that’s when the warning showed up and upon researching it, sounds like it’s because it wants no other containers running on the system. I’d rather not require a second server to hide a message, though. Does that mean there’s no way to hide the warning even though I’ve already acknowledged it a few times?
does your app interact with HA then?
Dockers can be pretty good separated, so only if you want them to interact, they would be aware of each other.
If so, then it would require to more clear on the unsupported part.
If not, more configuration on docker will resolve this thing
Nah it doesn’t care about HA at all. Listens on one port that’s unrelated to HA and is a simple API, nothing advanced. I just have it on the same system as HA because some separate automation on the network uses it (but not HA). Haven’t gone entirely in to determine how HA knows of another container is on the system (different subnets, other container has no mount points), but assumed (maybe incorrectly) the supervised software relayed information to the HA containers or something.
Context of the custom container. It’s just a python API. Here’s the dockerfile, followed by the command to run it.
But no notes about any override (or intent to do so.)
I strongly suspect youre living with the message if you decide to operate that way. Reading the docs I’m fairly certain a feature request to remove the message would be denied out of hand. It’s like the not activated message on a windows client that hasn’t installed an activation key. It’s not just for you its also for anyone else (dev has no clue who might be installed this way nor who would help them with installs) who might login to assist you with your install.
Will it cause a problem. Probably not - probably just an eyesore for you but I seriously doubt you’ll ever see it go away.
Yes, because of the requirements outlined by Nathan above. There is no way around this. Supervised is a terrible install method.
If you want to run your own software and know Docker (as you seem to) you should be using a Container install. You will lose access to managed add-ons but you can install Docker containers for most if not all of these instead. You just have to manage the updates instead of the supervisor doing it.
built your api as 3rd party addon for HA will get you out of the ‘unsupported’ corner as the supervisor can then manage it within the rules, but will not do anything with it.
Still, I’d be avoiding Supervised installs. The devs hate it. If this grey wedge gets small enough I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets dropped as an official installation method (no there are currently no plans to do this, and this is just my opinion).
Of the 4 options available, supervised is the best for my use case and has treated me well over the past 2-3 years. As mentioned in the thread, container loses some capabilities that I require (it was the first method I installed by), including the add ons feature. OS install limits greatly what I can do with the system at an OS level (I lock down devices heavily on the network and also have custom system level logging and such that the OS install would prevent me from doing, as I’ve tried to use it before), and the core install is basically just a less useful install method than container. Supervised is honestly the only option that meets all my personal requirements for HA to function and also give me my freedom to control the system the way I want.
That being said, I’ll look into the 3rd party add on method mentioned above, hopefully that gets me what I’m looking for.
