Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add Support for HEMS, VX3 and other EES Devices #318

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jun 8, 2023

Conversation

Nibot1
Copy link
Contributor

@Nibot1 Nibot1 commented May 28, 2023

I would like to add Data Point Support for:

  • HEMS (Energy Management)
  • Vitocharge VX3 (Inverter and Battery Storage)

Data points that would be supported: ess.* photovoltaic.* pcc.*

Sadly, to use these Data Points, you need the Advanced or Electric Subscription.

@Nibot1 Nibot1 marked this pull request as draft May 28, 2023 20:03
@Nibot1 Nibot1 marked this pull request as ready for review May 28, 2023 20:41
@crazyfx1
Copy link
Collaborator

crazyfx1 commented Jun 8, 2023

Thank you very much!

@crazyfx1 crazyfx1 merged commit e1e0c48 into openviess:master Jun 8, 2023
CFenner pushed a commit to CFenner/PyViCare that referenced this pull request Dec 26, 2023
* add Device for HEMS and ElectricalEnergySystems

* add missing Properties for HEMS Device

* add a missing Property and format the File

* change dependency from HeatingDevice to Device

* update comments

* fix wrong output for ess.power unit

* add test and test data for Vitocharge VX3
(self.asRoomSensor, r"E3_RoomSensor", ["type:climateSensor"])
(self.asRoomSensor, r"E3_RoomSensor", ["type:climateSensor"]),
(self.asElectricalEnergySystem, r"E3_HEMS", ["type:hems"]),
(self.asElectricalEnergySystem, r"E3_TCU10_x07", ["type:tcu"]),
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Nibot1, why did you choose to handle the tcu as an ElectricalEnergySystem? Due to it's device id gateway which is set to 0 in PyViCare.py this leads to duplicating device 0. Instead this should be handled as gateway (recently added class) to expose its feature (currently only wifi strength). What do you think?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi, apologies for my delayed response. You are right, we should handle the TCU as a Gateway. At the time when I implemented this, I didn't exactly know what the meaning of TCU was. Now I think TCU is Transmission Control Unit, is this right?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think so too, but I don't have the device in my setup.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants