[ZWAVE] Device database naming convention

@chris and other zwavers,

There are several devices that I have found in the Zwave Alliance Product Catalog where the names are being reused for newer versions of the devices. Most are now Zwave plus. I looked up the Nortek NGD00Z this evening and found that it is one of them. Here is an even better example, where the older device completely disappeared but the newer device has the same name. I have a couple of the older ones that are being replaced under warranty with the newer ones, and I’m not sure how to enter them into the device database. Do you have ideas or a plan for how to handle these in the database? For this specific case, I was thinking of adding a new device with the same name and ThingID, with a + (or ‘plus’ if only alphanumeric characters are supported) on the end. Do you know if the Zwave Alliance is archiving the older info, or what their policy is for this situation?

The database should handle this through the device version - assuming the manufacturer updates the application version number! The way to handle this is to edit the existing database entry to set a max version number, then create a new device that sets the min version number to the new version. Upload the XML to create the endpoint bumf, but you should be able to copy over the configuration (there’s an option in the top right menu to do this - make sure you get it right though as there’s no undo!).

The other way that might be used is the device type/id might be different for the newer versions. The same concept as above applies, but since often someone will update the database by adding the new type/id to the old entry, it can be a little messy. In this case, we could assume that since you (hopefully!) know that you have the new version, we use the IDs for this in the new entry and remove it from the old entry…

There is a ZWave certification requirement that every device can be individually identified, and I expect that this is done vie the above methods (although we do see some manufacturers not doing this occasionally!). This should allow them to have old and new devices available in the database (same as in our database).

For the zwave alliance database, this is pretty incomplete and unreliable - as part of ZWave certification, there is a requirement to add an entry, to the database, but many old devices aren’t there.

1 Like

How is the device version referenced in your device db? The only references to max/min I see are in the firmware version, so maybe that’s what you mean? This device does use the same Type:ID for both versions, but the firmware is different.

What would you prefer for the ThingID, since the model number is the same? Does it require alphanumeric or can I just add a + to the zwave plus version? For the Label, I’m thinking of just adding Z-Wave Plus.

I can’t think of any reason why they would choose to remove the older devices :roll_eyes:. From what I can find, the older PWN-BPC is completely gone! Maybe it’s just a one-off mistake… I’ll go send them a letter.

Yes - this is what I meant.


Use the same model number then. The thingType itself includes the version, so it will be different even if the id in the database is the same.

More likely is that it was never there in the first place. This database is quite new, and doesn’t contain many older devices, so unless you know it used to be there, then I’d suspect it never was…

As I understand, the database is maintained by the manufacturers - not the alliance. Manufacturers are required to add their devices…

I’m fairly certain that I had seen the older model before, and updated the device db using the info from it. Anyhow, thank you for the direction! I will get the newer version added before they come in.

1 Like