Heltun HE-HT01 (zwave Thermostat)

[chris (Chris Jackson)]

I’ve created the new entry -:

Heltun HE-HT01

Please update this.

Also, we need to update the old entry to fix the version numbers -:

Heltun HE-ZW-THERM-FL2

I’d also prefer that if these two things are just different versions of the same device, that they had the same name and thing uid. Or has the manufacturer changed the name of the devices?

[dirandad]

Thanks @chris

These two devices have the same function (Heating Thermostat), but use two different hardware and indeed, manufacturer has give two different references and identified them as different “model” :

Old (hardware 500 series) : HE-ZW-THERM-FL2 --> chosen as uid
New (hardware 700 series) : HE-TH01 --> should be chosen as uid

We are in the same case as Fibaro and FGS-222/FGS-223 where two device has been created in DB.

Adrien

[smhaller (Stefan M. Haller)]

I have made the change to the older model and removed the device type which is used with the newer model.

[chris (Chris Jackson)]

@smhaller

and removed the device type

We shouldn’t do that unless you are really sure it is not also used with the old version? If not, we have now made a hole where some devices will no longer be detected. If you’re sure these IDs are not used on the older device, then not problem.

[smhaller (Stefan M. Haller)]

Hi Chris

I’m pretty sure on it. But can further clarify with Heltun.

I actually have ordered the older Model and received the newer ones this year after waiting for about 1.5 years.
Maybe you can keep the change request open. Till I know it finally.

[chris (Chris Jackson)]

Thanks.

@smhaller

Maybe you can keep the change request open.

I guess we can leave it open until the new device is ready, which probably will only be a few days. Then we need to decide as we will either need to adjust version numbers, or manufacturer IDs, or both…

• If we think that the current manufacturer ID should not be on the old device and was entered by mistake, then we should remove it and leave both devices versions set to the maximum numbers.

OR

• if we think that there are older devices with the same manufacturer IDs, then we should leave it set in both devices, but set the version ranges appropriately.

If you think it’s likely that the information was set incorrectly, then I’m happy to remove it, and leave the version range maxed out on both. I do agree that this seems most likely given the information from @dirandad that the hardware is also quite different…

[smhaller (Stefan M. Haller)]

@chris, @dirandad
Question submitted to Heltun support. Expecting answer in the next days.

EDIT 21.12.2020:

Dear Stefan,

You are right. There are no plans to use the device type 0004:0001 on the older models.

–
Best Regards
Heltun Support Team
support@heltun.com
HELTUN

[dirandad]

Well, I have updated the device on the DB. It is still in modify state.
I have :

• Update overview
• Update Attachment
• Update Association : There was difference from old device
• Update parameters : Should be ok, but as there is a lot of parameters, an external control may be good. There is also a lot of differences from old device
• Update endpoints : Well, here I’m not confident. I’m not sure if initials endpoints came from my xml, or the old device (as this new device was created by @chris from old device) . All endpoints can be found in the documentation and I have update version. I haven’t change channel. So, if somebody can control these endpoints before I change the status of the device ?

Thank you

[Bruce_Osborne]

@chris
It appears 2 different user are working on this. We need to be careful here.

[chris (Chris Jackson)]

@Bruce_Osborne

It appears 2 different user are working on this

I don’t think so. I think @smhaller has modified the old version and @dirandad has modified the new version? At least that’s what I think is happening

[dirandad]

It’s a Teams work !
I haven’t made any change to the old device, only on the new one. And I haven’t notice any suspect change in this device.
@chris, how can we confirm endpoints list of the new device ? Is there a compare tool to see if the xml file match the DB ?

And another question, is possible to test the device declared on the DB that is still in modify status in my openhab installation where I can made test with the real device ?

Adrien

[Bruce_Osborne]

@dirandad

is possible to test the device declared on the DB that is still in modify status in my openhab installation where I can made test with the real device ?

Not supported, but in the past, some have tried this with OH2.

Modify a zwave binding jar to add/change a zwave device while waiting for a build

**PLEASE don’t use this without also updating the device database! As a community, we make the most progress when everyone contributes!** I’ve seen several posts where people have made changes to the device database and they were eager to try out their new shiny gizmo, or wanted to test a change/fix an issue, before it was included in a build. Here is a method to update the zwave jar with a modified device Thing definition, without having to use an IDE to modify and compile the jar. This method…

[chris (Chris Jackson)]

@dirandad

how can we confirm endpoints list of the new device ? Is there a compare tool to see if the xml file match the DB ?

You shouldn’t need to - the database was generated from the XML in the first place.

[Bruce_Osborne]

I was unclear whether they had modified the Endpoints after importing.

[dirandad]

I just modify endpoint version to be align with documentation. But by seeing the xml I can see field Version and VersionSupported for all Command_class, and for some of them, value are different.
The documentation seem to indicated VersionSupported in the Version Column.
The DB interface seem to indicated Version in the Version field.

What I should do ? go back to Version value, or let VersionSupported value ? May be there is no importance…

Adrien

[chris (Chris Jackson)]

@dirandad

I just modify endpoint version

What do you mean? There is no “endpoint version” is there?

Or do you mean the command class version?

If you are talking about the command class version, then there are two points to note. Firstly, for the binding, it doesn’t actually matter. The binding will use the information from the device in any case.

Secondly, it is probably best to use what is in the XML since that comes from the device so MUST be correct. Documentation can very easily be wrong.

[dirandad]

Yes, I was speaking about command_class version. I have write back to version in xml file. If you prefere, you can reload xml file in the device (if it does not replace other information than endpoints, I dont’ really want to do again parameters configuration :-))

Well, I think I can now request review of the device ?

[scastillejos (Santiago Castillejos)]

Hello everyone,

I see that this is a new topic, but I don’t see that it is 100% closed.
The situation is that I also have these devices (Heltun HE-HT01) and openhab 3.1.0 still recognizes it as the old device. in my .XML the Device ID and device Type are correct. I have checked the OpenSmartHouse Z-wave devices database and the device is in “Modified” status.

Before I upload a new XML, (if needed) I would like to know when the device modifications will be activated.

Thanks in Advance.

[Bruce_Osborne]

@scastillejos

the device is in “Modified” status.

Somebody made a change without requesting review. @chris will need to compare what was changed since the normal diff does not show that.

[chris (Chris Jackson)]

I’ve approved the device - I’m not 100% sure what changed but we’ll see once this is exported in the next day or so.