there’s a stop gap you could use (and no, I understand this is not the same, but it allows you to keep at least these new config entries together):
template: !include template.yaml
1 Like
if you want to break it up, treat it like automations:
template: !include_dir_merge_list template
Then create a template folder in the root config directory.
Then create as many files as you want with as many sensors as you want.
Yea I know, just put the same on the feature request. I mean that’s fine it just means I have to re-organize. Packages provided a nice mechanism of encapsulating the config for specific functionality. That made it easy for me to find what I’m looking for when I needed to change something. But all of my packages have numerous template sensors so if those get ripped out then the whole thing becomes kind of pointless and I’ll need to re-organize.
Also I raised this on the feature request but this makes sharing functionality a lot tougher. I mean yea blueprints are nice but you can only blueprint up one automation or one script. A package could include multiple automations/scripts as well as any supporting infrastructure required (like template, commandline or utility sensors). Now there’s a huge chunk of functionality that can’t be put into packages and easily shared as one self-contained bit of config.
Yeah I just was trying to offer up a solution to your troubles up here
1 Like
Thanks! Yea I mean there’s fine alternatives. I’m not like mad or anything just a little bummed.
Honestly I was actually really hoping someday there’d be blueprints of packages. So you could make some complete functionality, package up the entire thing (automations and all the supporting infrastructure) and users could use it by just filling in a few pre-defined inputs. But now it seems like packages might be on their way out instead 
I’m probably reading too much into it though. I’ll continue to hold out hope
1 Like
Could you please explain a little more, what you mean by “within each feature-specific package”? Do you sort your packages like packages/sensor.yaml?
Can’t speak for @CentralCommand but my package files are organized like this. Everything is in packages. Everything related to say my alarm clock is in the alarm clock package including customizations, helpers, template sensors etc. etc.
I’m going to be super bummed if this is the beginning of the end for packages.
4 Likes
My configuration.yaml is basically just this:
homeassistant:
auth_providers:
- type: homeassistant
allowlist_external_dirs:
- /config/packages
- /config/blueprints
- /config/common
packages: !include packages/packages.yaml
customize: !include customize.yaml
My packages/packages.yaml is this:
base: !include_dir_named base
update_notifications: !include_dir_named update_notifications
room_presence: !include_dir_named room_presence
eta_tracking: !include_dir_named eta_tracking
temp_humidity_tracking: !include_dir_named temp_humidity_tracking
battery_alerts: !include_dir_named battery_alerts
host_backups_network: !include_dir_named host_backups_network
home_management: !include_dir_named home_management
weather: !include_dir_named weather
task_management: !include_dir_named task_management
recorder: !include_dir_named recorder
mobile_management: !include_dir_named mobile_management
sleep_guests: !include_dir_named sleep_guests
energy_tracking: !include_dir_named energy_tracking
Then within each one of those folders is a file per component type like sensor.yaml, binary_sensor.yaml, alert.yaml, etc. which contains definitions of that type of thing for that particular named set of functionality.
2 Likes
@CentralCommand Thanks, that’s an interesting way to split it. Gives me another idea how to set this up. 
@jazzyisj That’s the way I’m doing it right now, but the files get bigger and bigger. In three files I have more than 1000 lines, it get’s confusing more and more… 
So I’m looking for a way to declutter it. Seems the new template “feature” doesn’t make it any easier… 
EDIT: should add, that I’m currently have to write some kind of documentation, as my wife rightly points out, what if I’m not around… So clear and easily readable packages would be very welcome… 
I guess I left out the fact that my automations and scripts both live within their own directories with subdirectories that match the packages to keep them organized. I like to keep separate files for each automation and script (or group of small automations/script). Makes them easier to find. Most of my actual package files are quiet manageable since I’ve organized it this way.
2 Likes
have you tried putting friendly_name inside the attributes section?
EDIT: No reason to check, I tried it on one of my sensors and it works.
I was going to try that myself but then I realized the attribute wouldn’t display where the name usually would.
I think Thomas’s template entity row plugin is a good method replace the friendly_name functionality. I only have a couple of places in my front end that are impacted though so it’s an easy fix for me.
Nvm. I’m dumb. The name attribute is still a template. All my template sensors works with the new format.
there’s a big difference between name: and friendly_name:
see a lengthy discussion Add (bring back) friendly_name to template sensors - #3 by 123 when I added my FR for bringing back friendly_name back to the default configuration variables for template:
apparently it can be done. It bewilders me though why such a core configuration variables for almost any integration in HA should be moved to hand made attributes on this new template: integration.
More flexibility ? No, because it has always be an optional variable? Confusing? yes, because by default the new default variable name: creates the object_id, which is very counter intuitive, coming from the legacy friendly_name, and which was there to do just the opposite, allow the user a friendly_name different from name/object_id…
This is still in development, so I hope the default friendly_name can be added to template:, and the documentation should be more precise and explicit, like Petro lists here: Add (bring back) friendly_name to template sensors - #10 by petro
That’s how name works in every other integration. This is nothing new, just new to templates.
It won’t. Balloob has been against it even in the old integrations, that’s why some template integrations do not have a friendly_name_template. Just use the method I listed. Friendly name is an attribute, so list it in attributes.
I don’t understand why you’re still upset. You have the ability to do what you want but you still don’t like it. Common man, it’s the same thing just configured differently.
1 Like
No, thats not what I referred to. I was comparing the new config with the now legacy config, where name: didn’t exist as a config variable (so what you state is not correct), and we only had the optional friendly_name:. Of course the sensor_name created the slug, so thats not new
yes, too bad really, and Ive never understood that, but I wasn’t talking about friendly_name_template, but about friendly_name. I do see we now can have friendly_name_template, but, considering Balloob heavy position against that, I sincerely hope the feature is here to stay, and not an oversight on his part.
If only we could use packages…But thats a another FR closed, though the discussion hasn’t stopped
@CentralCommand , can you provide an example of how to got this to work in your tamplate.yaml file? I’ve got all of my configuration broken down like this using the !include xxxxx.yaml files to keep everything organized. When I try to do this with a template.yaml file it’s not working. I get the following:
Invalid config for [template]: [binary_sensor] is an invalid option for [template]. Check: template->binary_sensor.
use this in configuration.yaml
template: !include_dir_merge_list template
Then create a directory named template inside your config directory.
Then create yaml files with any name, the name doesn’t matter.
Inside the files use the following configuration:
- binary_sensor:
- name: a
state: ...
- name: b
state: ...
sensor:
- name: a
state: ...
- name: b
state: ...
2 Likes
If what you say is true, then great. But it goes against what the docs say:
Making a template dir is a work around, it’s not the equivalent as simply allowing them to be merged form a single package file which appears to be the expectation from more users than not
2 Likes
Do either of those messages say that it’s being removed? Do either of those messages say it’s deprecated? Do any of the blogs say that they are deprecated? No.
No, it’s inherently implied by the fact that you’re recommending people not use it. If it was so star spangle bannered, you would continue to recommend it a way forward.
1 Like