Update comments.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -202,9 +202,7 @@ def publish_ha_discovery(device, client, mqtt_topic):
|
|||||||
or feature_type == "Option"
|
or feature_type == "Option"
|
||||||
):
|
):
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
default_component_type = (
|
default_component_type = "binary_sensor" if feature_type == "Event" else "sensor"
|
||||||
"binary_sensor" if feature_type == "Event" else "sensor"
|
|
||||||
) # TODO use more appropriate types
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
overrides = feature.get("discovery", {})
|
overrides = feature.get("discovery", {})
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -222,6 +220,11 @@ def publish_ha_discovery(device, client, mqtt_topic):
|
|||||||
"device": device_info,
|
"device": device_info,
|
||||||
"state_topic": f"{mqtt_topic}/state",
|
"state_topic": f"{mqtt_topic}/state",
|
||||||
# "availability_topic": f"{mqtt_topic}/LWT",
|
# "availability_topic": f"{mqtt_topic}/LWT",
|
||||||
|
# # I found the behaviour of `availability_topic` unsatisfactory -
|
||||||
|
# # since it would set all device attributes to "unavailable"
|
||||||
|
# # then back to their correct values on every disconnect/
|
||||||
|
# # reconnect. This leaves a lot of noise in the HA history, so
|
||||||
|
# # I felt things were better off without an `availability_topic`.
|
||||||
"value_template": "{{value_json." + name + " | default('unavailable')}}",
|
"value_template": "{{value_json." + name + " | default('unavailable')}}",
|
||||||
"object_id": f"{device_ident}_{name}",
|
"object_id": f"{device_ident}_{name}",
|
||||||
"unique_id": f"{device_ident}_{name}",
|
"unique_id": f"{device_ident}_{name}",
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user