This is old feature request but still very valid WTH. Using custom cards (often with YAML) to get similar UI graphics (calendar, slider, toggle etc) is not the most user friendly option
I nearly closed your post as a duplicate of a wildcard WTH. I edited your title to make it a little clearer. I do think this would be a nice feature addition.
1 Like
A read only input helper would be a sensor… not an input.
But it is not possible to manually change a sensor. This is what I tried to desribe here: WTH are there no Variable Entities in HA?
The ask is about having an input helper, not modifiable on the ui but adjustable via service calls. Sensors are set by integrations, do we have a sensor option like this?
6 Likes
Right! That makes sense, thanks for clarification 
1 Like
Yes. I you can use a trigger template sensor like this:
template:
- trigger:
- platform: event
event_type: set_my_sensor
sensor:
- name: My sensor
state: "{{ trigger.event.data.state }}"
And then you can change it in a script or automation like this:
action:
- alias: Update my sensor
event: set_my_sensor
event_data:
state: new_value
Can even add attributes if you want, just pass more data in the event and use it in attributes in the sensor config. Plus trigger template sensors restore state. So basically, there’s your variables right there.
8 Likes
Very nice application of a Trigger-based Template Sensor! 
Going forward, I will be suggesting this technique to others who require easily storing data “somewhere” that’s read-only in the UI and is automatically restored after startup.
You could even create one sensor.variables and store all the variables in a dictionary in the attributes
Can you post an example of that?
When triggered, all templates in sensor.variables are evaluated. My concern is that when sensor.variables receives data meant for one of its many variables, the templates for the other variables don’t get the data they need and, unless mitigated, will report errors or replace their existing values with none.
Working on it as we speak 
Big support on this request. I often use input helpers (mostly numbers and strings) as generic variables, to hold states evaluated by external Python scripts from other sensors. Like for example the battery state of charge from a battery voltage sensor. Or the rate of change for a barometric pressure sensor. They all end up being editable on the UI, which makes no sense. Giving the input helpers a read-only flag would make this much nicer and would not require some convoluted template based workarounds.
here you go:
Trigger based template sensor:
template:
- trigger:
- platform: event
event_type: set_variable
- platform: event
event_type: remove_variable
sensor:
- unique_id: 4a4c8e53-9e68-4198-9cc5-b336e228ea4d
name: Variables
state: Variables
attributes:
variables: >
{% set current = this.attributes.get('variables', {}) %}
{% if trigger.event.event_type == 'set_variable' %}
{% set new = {trigger.event.data.key: trigger.event.data.value} %}
{{ dict(current, **new) }}
{% elif trigger.event.event_type == 'remove_variable' %}
{{ dict(current.items() | rejectattr('0', 'eq', trigger.event.data.key)) }}
{% endif %}
To set a variable (reusing the key will overwrite the previous value)
action:
- alias: Set a variable
event: set_variable
event_data:
key: test
value: 26
To remove a variable from the sensor:
action:
- alias: Remove a variable
event: remove_variable
event_data:
key: test
My sensor.variables after a few tests:
friendly_name: Variables
variables:
test_int: 10
test_float: 9.99
test_list:
- a
- list
test_dict:
foo: bar
whale: petunia
14 Likes
Thanks! Now I have a better understanding of what you meant.
The sensor doesn’t contain multiple attributes (one for each variable) but a single attribute whose value is a dictionary (whose keys represent each variable).
A very handy feature of your proposal is that, once sensor.variables has been defined, it can store a variable that’s defined ‘on the fly’ by an automation merely by using the set_variable event. In a manner of speaking, sensor.variables is a storage object with methods for setting/removing properties.
NOTE
Your first Feature Request
Automatically add a EDIT: Complicates retrieval.timestamp key to each variable when the set_variable event is processed.
Whoa. Jinja supports the ** syntax to expand a dictionary into kwargs?! I did not know that, that is exciting. I can definitely use that in a lot of places.
That would require it to be a list with dictionaries instead of a dictionary, and that would make it harder to get the variable out of the sensor
variables:
test: 99
test2: hello
Could be retrieved with state_attr('sensor.variables', 'variables').test
With this WTH implemented it could even be an attribute directly
variables:
- key: test
value: 99
timestamp: 2022-10-01 21:54:01.944622+02:00
- key: test2
value: hello
timestamp: 2022-10-01 20:51:01.933622+02:00
This requires state_attr('sensor.variables', 'variables') | selectattr('key', 'eq', 'test') | map(attribute='value') | list | first
2 Likes
Agreed; should’ve seen that one. Best to keep it as-is to simplify retrieval.
If someone needs to track the time when a variable’s value changes they can implement it as a standalone sensor entity like in CentralCommand’s example.
Uhh… May I quote Frenck from this post ?
In general, attributes are something we nowadays try to avoid. Mostly you’ll see them from “older” or custom integration. For new integrations and in our review process, we generally don’t allow for attributes that have value/could have been their own entities.
And you guys propose a convoluted template with Jinja mess that stores everything into attributes as a ‘solution’ to a very basic feature that should be lightweight, easy to use and built into core ? No wonder HA gets more and more resource hungry with every release. And what about the HA for the masses thing ? Where a simple variable requires something like that ? I mean sorry, no offense, but this makes exactly zero sense to me. Of course there are ways and workarounds to achieve this behavior now. That doesn’t mean they’re desirable. I could write a value into a file with a shell command and then retrieve it back into a sensor by polling with another shell command. Will it work ? Sure ! That doesn’t mean it’s a good way to replace this missing feature.
The reason of this WTH (and the other one about variables) is exactly to avoid these kind of hacky workarounds. What we need is a good native implementation that follows current best development practices for HA. Giving the input helpers a read only flag would be an easy first step.
2 Likes
You are right, chill down a bit, there is a tendency here around to achieve things independent of complexity, but at least, they are getting included and sharing their points.
Agree on making things simple and streamlined so HA should get easier for a new joiner.
So, let’s continue voting
You’re right, sorry. But this overengineering / overcomplexifying simple things mentality is really something that triggers me (and not only in HA )
1 Like