Hi Chris,
I looked at the Greenwave “NP210”, you entered. This is the 5 port NP210-G model. I tried to update the “NS210” entry end that didn’t go right. The NS210-U (F, G, B, I) is 1 port model, that seem to me are identical ones.
The NP210-KF is EU model with 6 ports instead of 5 ports UK version.
So should the ‘label/name’ in de database reflect the coutry specific models?
@chris in regards the various Greenwave versions I am wondering what is the logical key for the database? I assume it is manufacturer/type/id and one entry can have muliple of those, right?
No - not normally. As @luotaus suggests, the identification of devices within the database (well, within the binding really) is the manufacturer, type, id, and version. A device in the database can (obviously) only have one manufacturer, but it can have multiple sets of type/id pairs, and then we use a version range (ie min/max version). Most devices don’t use version, but Fibaro do - they have the same device, same references, but different firmware version, and different versions might have different configuration parameters…
So, back to the question… Generally, most manufacturers have the same type/id for the different country versions, so the binding can’t tell them apart, and there would be no point in having multiple versions in the database. Some manufacturers do have different type/ids for region, but since the configuration is the same, we just lump them into the same device, otherwise we’d have an even bigger database maintenance issue 
After some digging I think we need 3 entries in the database. I also suggest to rename the entries as there seems to be no mapping between the IDs Nxxxx and the OH relevant specification like # of plugs.
Name: GWPN6
Descr.: Multi-socket PowerNode (6-plug)
Type/ID: 0x3/0x4
Name: GWPN5UK
Descr.: Multi-socket PowerNode (UK, 5-plug)
Type/ID: 0x3/0x3
Name: GWPN1
Descr.: Single-socket PowerNode
Type/ID: 0x2/0x2
Ebel, Chris, does this looks good to you?
There is also a thread around the NP310. Once we are clear on the entries, perhabs we should continue the discussion there. Could be that as a next step we have to add different (firmware) versions.
Looks fine to me.
There’s also this issue on github…
Hi Joerg,
Sure, this look good to me. I’ve had a quick look in the PDF that Vincent mentioned in the other tread en that’s a lot of nice information. Thanks
Ebel
@chris, not sure if this is a bug.
In the screenshot below endpoints 0-5 were uploaded via XML and endpoint 6 added manually. Now I cannot add the command classes for endpoint 6 as the “+” icon is missing.
Yes - this looks to be a bug. I’ll add the button tomorrow when I get home.
Thanks.
Chris
