I noticed that the device created takes the login string as its id.
This prohibits managing two or more systems that use the same login, but above all it is less nice to see if you have a login that is not very significant.
If I created the account on the Aton cloud with "pippo" (disney personage) as login then I have "pippo" as the system identifier
Of course I can do the rename on the integration page, but it always remains only a new alias and then even after a rename from "pippo" to "MySolarSystem" I always see stuff like this in the entities:
MySolarSystem Instant Solar Power
Sensor: sensor.pippo.instant_solar_power
It might be better to generate the ID into something more meaningful, e.g. "AtonStorage-" + SerialId
Certainly this would be a change that, if released, would break with the past for systems that have already been using integration for some time.
So I suppose it would be better to add a fourth field in the configuration phase to let the user choose which ID to enter (perhaps giving an example) and in the case of a field left empty, use the previous mechanism for compatibility with systems already installed that need to delete and then reinstall the integration
I noticed that the device created takes the login string as its id.
This prohibits managing two or more systems that use the same login, but above all it is less nice to see if you have a login that is not very significant.
If I created the account on the Aton cloud with "pippo" (disney personage) as login then I have "pippo" as the system identifier
Of course I can do the rename on the integration page, but it always remains only a new alias and then even after a rename from "pippo" to "MySolarSystem" I always see stuff like this in the entities:
MySolarSystem Instant Solar Power
Sensor: sensor.pippo.instant_solar_power
It might be better to generate the ID into something more meaningful, e.g. "AtonStorage-" + SerialId
Certainly this would be a change that, if released, would break with the past for systems that have already been using integration for some time.
So I suppose it would be better to add a fourth field in the configuration phase to let the user choose which ID to enter (perhaps giving an example) and in the case of a field left empty, use the previous mechanism for compatibility with systems already installed that need to delete and then reinstall the integration