Changing items metadata very frequently

[Spaceman_Spiff (Sebastian)]

@rlkoshak

But setup and configuration becomes much more tedious. For example, my threashold alert rule template has somewhere around 20 parameters. You are suggesting I much set all 19 parameters for each and every individual Item because each Item gets it’s very own rule.

I have never suggested that. Parameters that have a default value are optional because if omitted the default is used. So you would have to set only one parameter and additionally only those that changed:

@Spaceman_Spiff

When you instantiate it you have to supply the non optional parameters

It’s exactly the same amount of configuration you have to do.
Just that instead of spreading the configuration over several items it’s in a central place and you get the benefit that not every rule has to do the metadata validation and a nice user facing parameter input dialogue.

---

@rlkoshak

Jan made it clear he didn’t want a repeat of the UoM PR.

Really - the UoM discussion? Where people were essentially commenting “I didn’t read the whole thread and didn’t understand the issue in detail but how about this and that?” Where I tried my best to keep every one on the same page and up to date and in the end everybody (including me) was extremely annoyed that the discussion was running in circles? Because yet another person asked a question or made a statement that had already been answered multiple times. That UoM discussion?

Also his resentment was not clear at all. We’ve had a discussion shortly before on another issue where I suggested that metadata should not exist alone but be bound to the item. I’ve attributed his comment “If it’s that discussion again, no.” to the merge of item and metadata because one could understand the suggested configuration format in that way. But just because the file format provides an option to configure it in a certain way (a way that it already provides now) does not mean the underlying data structure has to be the same as the file format. That’s what I tried to make clear with the next comment.

@rlkoshak

And frankly, I’m not sure that would apply here if the main thing I want out of it you appear to fight against (perhaps it’s a misunderstanding) where the YAML you see in the UI is identical to the YAML you see in the file.Then it’s the same format for everyone and there is no more file based users vs. managed config users dichotomy.

I fully agree that this is how things should work and have stated that multiple times. It would be a great benefit for all users. I even suggested that it should be a shared core functionality that should do the (de-)serialisation of the yaml so the core, UI and file based is always in sync.

---

I feel like we’re running in circles again and these discussions are extremely exhausting and stressful for me. I think all has been said and nothing new or good will come if we continue.
It’s been made clear that my ideas and suggestions are an active hindrance for the openHAB development so I’ll refrain from making them in the future.