Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature/add schedule #2

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Dec 19, 2020
Merged

Conversation

Hout
Copy link
Contributor

@Hout Hout commented Dec 18, 2020

Added schedule extraction & report planned temperature when it differs from the setpoint AND mode is follow schedule.

@RichieB2B
Copy link
Owner

Thanks! Looks like this PR does not depend on watchforstock/evohome-client#117, right? It sets a label type="planned" when Evohome is preheating, and also when Evohome lowers the setpoint before the planned end of a heating period (precooling).

prometheus_client keeps reporting the values for unique labels until they are removed. Should type="planned" be removed when planned == setpoint? Or should the planned temperature be output all the time, simply following the schedule and not only when planned != setpoint? Detecting/visualizing preheating+precooling can then be done in prometheus using a compare between planned and setpoint.

@Hout
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hout commented Dec 19, 2020

Looks like this PR does not depend on watchforstock/evohome-client#117, right?

Correct!

prometheus_client keeps reporting the values for unique labels until they are removed. Should type="planned" be removed when planned == setpoint?

That was my intention :-)

Or should the planned temperature be output all the time, simply following the schedule and not only when planned != setpoint? Detecting/visualizing preheating+precooling can then be done in prometheus using a compare between planned and setpoint.

I am less experienced in Prometheus but I want to prevent to be the carpenter who wants to fix everything with a hammer and a nail (e.g. Python). So I see the advantage of the latter option, however I also think that the amount of data might be a bit raw and the post processing in Prometheus might put off people. Closer look: yes this is a better idea.

@Hout
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hout commented Dec 19, 2020

I noticed that the permanent state is not reflected in the exporter results; investigating...

@RichieB2B RichieB2B merged commit 78b6b7e into RichieB2B:master Dec 19, 2020
@RichieB2B
Copy link
Owner

Thanks! I also added a line to remove the planned temperature when the Honeywell servers are unavailable.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants