Might be some of my decisions in the past weeks have not been that smart
My apologize to to all users who have run into difficulties with their EV's cause of the usage of this integration. I thought the provided instructions and explanations had been sufficient in order to avoid issues. But looks like this was/is not the case. I am not 100% sure, if somebody is really interested in a detailed root cause analysis, or not (since one part of the problem is TL;DR;). Here is a brief summary
-
I was lazy and though, reusing the existing, (since the implementation of the websocket) orphan update-interval as new update interval for the extended vehicle information would be smart (and easy understandable from the provided information in the setup dialog). -> I am still lazy, but does not consider this reuse something that is orphan as smart move any longer
-
I was not aware, that regularly requesting evcc-configuration endpoints, could cause additional (intense) evcc <-> Vehicle-API communication (which could lead to: draining the 12V battery system of your vehicle or exceeding a possible existing Vehicle API-rate-limit). -> IMHO this is a more general issue - that should/must be solved outside of this HA integration - but might be I am alone with this opinion (Have in mind: before the new feature has been introduced in this integration, there had been documentation available how to request ecvv-configuration endpoints via HA-REST-Integration - which would/will cause exactly the same kind if issues). I am quite confident nobody was aware of the potential impact of the current implementation.
-
I though (since in the past years there had been multiple requests to make the vehicle data visible in the evcc-configuration section also available in the HA integration) to make it as simple as possible for the users to access the new feature. So the initial defaults had been: as soon as a evcc-admin password had been specified, the integration will fire requests against the evcc-endpoints in the (probably more then a year not relevant) integration update interval (and used 30sec as default). -> IMHO this was then more or less acting like a magnifying glass to the general issue with the [never intended to be used by 3'rd party (like this integration)] configuration endpoints and the corresponding backend implementation. Please don't get me wrong here - I don't want to point with my finger into any direction here! It it what it is - and it has been the new integration releases of the past weeks, that had light up that fire.
What has been changed?
- Requesting extended vehicle and meter data is disabled by default
- Reuse of the orphan (global) update interval have been replaced by two independent/individual configurable update intervals for extended vehicle data and meter data. So in total there are now three update interval input fields:
- One for the default data updates - this interval is only relevant when the WebSocket is not used
- One update interval for requesting the extended vehicle data (default 3600 sec= 1hour) - requires a specified evcc admin password plus the 'request extended vehicle data' option must be enabled
- One update interval for requesting additional meter data (default 3600 sec= 1hour) - requires a specified evcc admin password plus the 'request additional meter data' option must be enabled
What you should do?
- Rethink, if you really need the functionality of the Extended Vehicle (and Meter) Sensors in HomeAssistant
- If you still want/need it - make sure that you understand the theory of operation: With every configured update cycle the integration will request evcc-configuration endpoints, that normally will be only called, when you open the eccc-configuration page (or hitting reload/F5 while you are in the evcc-configuration dialog). What ever happens there (concerning API-requests to your vehicle, will be also happen with every configured update cycle.
- Review your current integration configuration, if all the settings matching your current requirements - you can do so via the Reconfigure option from the 3-dot menu:
Please consider supporting me
Thanks to those who have already supported me in the past weeks or month that is highly appreciated! To the other users: I am putting quite an amount of energy and passion into this integration. Perhaps you could give yourself a little push (if you can afford it) and become a sponsor.
If you haven't starred this integration in Github yet - please do so - TIA