However at the moment, it is (at least for my application ) missing a key feature compared to the old binding, support of extended deviceIDs.
My setup is utilising DS2409, which is a MicroLan coupler that enables larger - and/or more reliant - networks by separating these in separate smaller networks. - Link
This means that a temperature sensor, eg. DS18B20, attached to the mail branch of a DS2409 is addressed as such with the old binding:
deviceId=1F.EDC601000000/main/28.945042000000
Would it be possible to “relax” the deviceID validations in the new binding to support this?
As I see it - without having looked into the code in the binding - it should not be necessary to add support for a new thing (DS2409) - I should be possible the ignore DS2409 but accept that devices can have a prefix and let the 1-wire network handle the addressing?
Please ad a GitHub issue for that. I’ll have a look but there are other things in the queue and I’ll forget that. I’m not too fond of allowing it in this way because this will leave some things out in the discovery. Please attach some pictures of the DS2409 in the issue, so I can see what is available (I don’t own these devices). And link this post. Thanks.