Hi there,
Why are there two different places for a integration name.
One here:
And one here:
(The device in the screenshot is the same, but with different names)
They can be both different. And all the time when I add a new device, I need to rename them in both places to keep the system consistent. I would be happy, if these can be unified.
This is because an integration can have different config entries, and a config entry can have different devices
You should be seeing a prompt to rename the config entry upon renaming the device (if I remember correctly)
Don’t forget to vote for your own WTH
That doesn’t explain why I have to rename the device in two places. This is the same device:
Only the second one renames the entities (or gives you the option to).
The first one only seems to change how the device name appears in the integration card and devices list.
Why do they both not do the same thing (rename it in all places and give you the option to rename the associated entities)?
You are not renaming the device in the first screenshot. You are renaming the config entry there. The device name stays the same.
Can you see how it is confusing to users though?
The first one is in a list with a big heading called “Devices”. How is renaming this not renaming the device?
I can see how it can be confusing.
But not all config entries map to only one device. If there is more devices per config entry, then there obviously need to be separate names.
And to make it even more complex, the same device can have entities coming from multiple different config entries from completely different integrations.
So simplifying it all for this one use case where the config entry and device happen to always be singular, while preserving the compatibility with more complex cases, is not trivial and IMO just not worth it right now.
Not sure but may be this is related - a device is associated with 3 same integrations:
The list is not always called “devices”. In some integrations it’s integration entries or services or hubs. Seems like the title is managed by integration? I agree this part of UI is mightily confusing, I regularly find myself opening the wrong list (this one instead of actual entities list or the other way around).
I mean it is useful. If I want to go to a device quickly and I know which integration it belongs to this is the quickest way.
I don’t understand what you mean. The fastest way is the proper devices list (accessible directly from the integrations list too). Not this list we were talking about, because for some integrations it does not lists devices. For example Tuya integration has in that list just one hub and only in that hub you have all the devices.
I don’t use hubs. So my integrations list all their devices.
Option 1: go to the devices list and either search alphabetically or filter on what I think the name is,
or (my preferred)
Option 2: Click on the integration card. Click on the device I want.
Ok, that works for some integrations. But there’s a link to the devices list on the integration card too:
Clicking it (4 URZÄ„DZENIA on my screen) opens the list of devices, and that works for all integrations.
Clicking the upper part, with the integration name, opens the integration page, which has the devices list, but only for some integrations, because it’s not really devices list, it’s config entries list.
I think this shows the issue here - the config entries of integrations are called “devices” even though they are not devices, which is very confusing. And naturally, since they are not really devices, they have to have their own name (for example for Tuya integration the list has a hub, which has the name is email address of the Tuya account).
Is this the same issue as when renaming a script? It seems to be impossible to do that.
No, that is a completely different issue. Renaming a script I would describe as fundamentally buggy in its current state. Renaming a device on the other hand works perfectly fine (you just have to do it in the right place).
