You said you had fixed your indentation, but you have not posted your current code.
The code for the above error is
- alias: p1_control
trigger:
platform: state
entity_id: switch.sonoff2
action:
service_template: >
{% if is_state('switch.sonoff2', 'on') %}
switch.turn_on
{% else is_state('switch.sonoff2', 'off') %}
switch.turn_off
{% endif %}
entity_id: switch.sonoff
I also tried this code
- alias: p1_control
trigger:
platform: mqtt
entity_id: stat/DVES_5A97C3_fb/power2
action:
service_template: >
{% if states('stat/DVES_5A97C3_fb/power2', 'on') %}
switch.turn_on
{% else states('stat/DVES_5A97C3_fb/power2', 'off') %}
switch.turn_off
{% endif %}
entity_id: cmnd/DVES_5A97C3_fb/power1
and got this error, but am thinking the switch.turn_on/off should be an mqtt message of some sort.
Invalid config for [automation]: [entity_id] is an invalid option for [automation].
Check: automation->trigger->0->entity_id. (See /config/configuration.yaml, line 18).
Please check the docs at https://home-assistant.io/components/automation/
My config yaml file is still the default that was created when installing hass.io, and is as follows:
# Configure a default setup of Home Assistant (frontend, api, etc)
default_config:
# Example configuration.yaml entry
#mqtt:
# discovery: true
# discovery_prefix: homeassistant
# Uncomment this if you are using SSL/TLS, running in Docker container, etc.
# http:
# base_url: example.duckdns.org:8123
# Text to speech
tts:
- platform: google_translate
group: !include groups.yaml
automation: !include automations.yaml
script: !include scripts.yaml
try this (notice the different indentation level of the last “entity_id” line):
- alias: p1_control
trigger:
platform: state
entity_id: switch.sonoff2
action:
service_template: >
{% if is_state('switch.sonoff2', 'on') %}
switch.turn_on
{% else is_state('switch.sonoff2', 'off') %}
switch.turn_off
{% endif %}
entity_id: switch.sonoff
Normally, without a template and only one service in the action section you woud write the acrtion section like this:
action:
service: some_service
entity_id: some_entity
In that case the indentation level for the service and entity_id is the same.
If you have more than one service call in the action then you have to turn the services into a list:
action:
- service: some_service
entity_id: some_entity
- service: some_other_service
entity_id: some_othr_entity
Then in those cases the entity_id is indented one more level below the service call.
In your case the indentation level is like the first one above even tho your service call is on multiple lines.
If you try the code all the way above it should work (hopefully…).
One switch controlling the state of another switch:
- alias: p1_control
trigger:
platform: state
entity_id: switch.sonoff2
action:
service_template: 'switch.turn_{{trigger.to_state.state}}'
entity_id: switch.sonoff
finity:
Thanks. This did not work. It gave the same error. I would think a template has to be defined prior to use, but maybe for this, the word template is just telling hass.io that the codes lines following follow their own format?
So I was able to get the below to work.
I can toggle the sonoff2 from the sonoff’s control page, but the automation does not actuate. I assume this means the trigger is not working.
I can hit the trigger button on the hass.io UI and turn the switch on. However, it turns on no matter what the state of sonoff2. The code block below, I think, would only turn on sonoff if sonoff is on also. So something is wrong there.
- alias: p1_control
trigger:
platform: state
entity_id: switch.sonoff2
action:
service_template: >
{% if is_state('switch.sonoff2', 'on') %}
switch.turn_on
{% endif %}
entity_id: switch.sonoff
If i put in the else statement, then I get the same error as before. I believe I have the indenting correct. I have tried indenting differently just to see any changes.
{% else is_state('switch.sonoff2', 'off') %}
switch.turn_off
123 Taras:
Similar to my posting for finity, your recommendation passed the config check.
However, sonoff does not turn on when sonoff2 is on. Nor turn off, etc.
I can click the trigger button on the hass.io UI and it will turn on the sonoff, regardless of the state of sonoff2.
OK I figured out the error. I completely overlooked it the first time. The “else” statement in the template shouldn’t be looking for a true/false. It’s already being called because the first “if” statement has already decided it’s false.
Try this:
- alias: p1_control
trigger:
platform: state
entity_id: switch.sonoff2
action:
service_template: >
{% if is_state('switch.sonoff2', 'on') %}
switch.turn_on
{% else %}
switch.turn_off
{% endif %}
entity_id: switch.sonoff
Also, you’re thinking of the automation wrong.
You are using the automation to control the state of switch.sonoff based on the change in state of switch.sonoff2 not the other way around.
And sonoff doesn’t care what it’s state is if it’s operated independently of sonoff2. You can turn sonoff off & on all day and will happily switch states regardless of the state of sonoff2. However, if you switch sonoff2 then sonoff will follow it’s state because it triggers the automation.
Then, I’m sorry to say, either there was a mistake made in transcribing the automation to your system or the test was flawed. I’ve used it countless times successfully and I’ve suggested it to others who have used it successfully; it does work.
Its service_template dispenses with if-else and leverages the usefulness of the trigger object:
{{trigger.to_state.state}}
- If
switch.sonoff2changes to stateon, it triggers the automation and the service_template appendsontoswitch.turn_to createswitch.turn_onfor the entity_idswitch.sonoff. - When
switch.sonoff2changes to stateoff, it calls the serviceswitch.turn_offforswitch.sonoff. Easy-peasy.
- alias: p1_control
trigger:
platform: state
entity_id: switch.sonoff2
action:
service_template: 'switch.turn_{{trigger.to_state.state}}'
entity_id: switch.sonoff
FWIW, what won’t work is if you attempt to trigger this automation manually (such as using the service automation.trigger via the Service page). When done this way, the trigger object is undefined and the action will fail.
123 Taras
I was able to get it to work, and with the from_state, which is what I was really after.
Have you used this in non-UI automation? I assume the answer is yes, but want to confirm, and if the coding is the same. On some other threads I am getting warning about the UI and non-UI automation being significantly different, and might decide to ditch the UI path.
Thanks for the help.
finity:
fixing the else statement got it past config check and I was able to get this code to work also. I also confirmed that the line indentation of entity_id will kill it.
Thanks for the help!!
One more question - not related to my code issues, but again, why the word ‘template’? It seems to be a misnomer. It is essentially just code. There is no predetermined pattern (template) that has to be followed. Or am I missing something?
???
That would make the second switch’s state opposite of the first switch’s state.
SW1 changes from on to off
Template using from_state creates: switch.turn_on for SW2
SW2’s state (on) is now opposite of SW1’s state (off)
SW1 changes from off to on
Template using from_state creates: switch.turn_off for SW2
SW2’s state (off) is now opposite of SW1’s state (on)
If that’s what you were really after, it wasn’t mentioned earlier. 
An automation is an automation. It may affect entities that are are exposed in the Lovelace UI or it may not. It depends on what’s in the automation.
What is this alleged “warning about the UI and non-UI automation being significantly different”?
EDIT
Clarified by nickrout. You were referring to using Home Assistant’s Automation Editor vs a text editor (like Visual Studio Code, or Atom, or Notepad++ or etc).
I think he means writing automations via the gui vs writing yaml.
1 Like
In that case there’s an important missing word:
Have you used this in non-UI automation editor?
The answer would be a resounding ‘YES’ because Home Assistant’s Automation Editor has limitations.
Nickrout is correct. Is the Automation Editor different than setting it all up in a yaml file?
I am using VS-Code, but everything else was set up via the UI, so my config.yaml is empty, etc.
123 Taras: yes, I wanted to ensure both loads are not on at the same time. Your recommendation is easily adapted. Thanks again!
Incredible! The very first automation you posted does not do that. It does the exact opposite; it ensures both switches are synchronized. Even the title you created suggests that’s what you want.
You do realize that several people have come to your assistance to fix an automation that doesn’t achieve your goal? Yet not until 16 posts into this long thread do you drop a hint that what you actually want is the exact opposite of the automation you created!
Before you post another question, I urge you to read this first. It will save everyone a lot of time and effort.
I disagree, and you are way out of order with your remarks! Your assertion is that I asked the forum to write an automation for me, and had I simply asked for that, I would have gotten the answer much more quickly.
My goal was to figure out why my automation was not working and the responses from you and others helped me achieve that - so I consider it a success (until reading your last post - incredible and non-value-added). - and my title was taken from another troubleshooting thread - i.e. I searched the forums, and I have spent significant time reading through the hass material to come up to speed.
If you re-read my post you’ll see I made no such assertion. You posted your automation and asked for assistance to eliminate the errors it was producing. That was achieved.
finity was first to notice that there appeared to be discrepancy between what the automation was accomplishing and your interpretation of its behavior. What was completely unknown to anyone was that you wanted the automation to behave differently than how you originally presented it.
Indeed, it’s wasn’t that you were thinking about it wrong, you were thinking about it in a completely different way from how you presented it to others.
You’ve been a community member here for less than a month, so let me explain its value. The link I provided is to assist new users (and old) to become productive members of the community. There are many bullet points in that list but the gist is to perform research, present details, and generally provide clear communication. It’s the 'clear communication aspect that needed improvement in this thread. Rarely does one see an author report they actually want something opposite to what everyone has been busy helping to debug.
This community currently has over 40000 members but only a tiny fraction regularly provides assistance. Your question happened to attract three such people (check their profiles). Three out of forty thousand. They, including me, don’t have time to waste offering so-called ‘non-value-added’ commentary.
Good luck solving other problems you may encounter.
I disagree. Similar to your opening “if you reread my post”, you can reread the title, which says to trigger and that is it - not what you interpreted - it is clear.
And if you reread, you will see that I did conduct research. It did not get me past the config check, so I asked the experts.
And finity’s comment was trying to help me think about how the automation works, not how to ask a clear question (and I had no confusion on what my code snippet was doing).
The title can be interpreted two ways:
- When switch 1 turns on, it turns on switch 2.
- When switch 1 turns on, it turns off switch 2.
What clue would indicate to the reader which of the two is the desired option? That clue is the automation you supplied which functions according to first option:
When switch 1 turns on, it turns on switch 2.
So it was not clear to anyone else but you that the automation should actually work like the second option.
I never said his comment was about asking a ‘clear question’. I said he was the first to notice a difference between what the automation did and how you were interpreting it. In other words, he noticed that he and you weren’t in sync about the automation’s operation. The reason became apparent afterwards when you revealed you actually wanted it to work according to the second option.
Enough guys, someone please close this thread, it is over.