Switches add on/off button even when it is not coded

[mike79 8]

Well this is annoying
not sure who came up with the idea to hard code buttons for device types, well it is a bad idea.
I think one who is capable to code a app is capable of choosing their own design

Latest beta adds on / off button to all switches even when it is not coded, multilevel switches the same things , also player device gets a pre build setup that one cannot remove

So all apps that are set as those is now broken.


before preview

Please login or register to see this attachment.

after preview

Please login or register to see this attachment.

new switch before preview

Please login or register to see this attachment.

 

After preview

Please login or register to see this attachment.

Edited March 30, 2024 by mike79

[SmartHomeEddy 1,005]

I doubt if I understand you correctly Mike. If you choose a switch like devicetype, you want it to switch (on and off)? Why would you otherwise choose for a switch devicetype? You can choose other devicetypes without those buttons if you don’t want to switch something. 

[mike79 8]

You cannot choose where on off buttons is on screen very first thing.

Why would they not just have this code in template so one can remove them if not liked.

As a stated in another thread that this is why we need a device template  app.

People have been using device type switch for making quickapps , not all quickapps have on off buttons

But with this update even when loading old apps the.on off button appears 

 

So 100 off apps that now have sliders and on off buttons that thare never was coded there

 

I think Fibaro hates there customers, just making it harder and harder for each FW upgrade

The one who came.up with thos bad idea to limit developers apparently doesn't care about developers. 

No wonder people goes over to homey.

And why hardcode it instead of just putting in the code template JFC!

 

Edited March 30, 2024 by mike79

[SmartHomeEddy 1,005]

23 minutes ago, mike79 said:

 

I think Fibaro hates there customers, just making it harder and harder for each FW upgrade

The one who came.up with thos bad idea to limit developers apparently doesn't care about developers. 

That is not very nice to say, behind a screen with a keyboard. I think you should take out your bad mood somewhere else. 
 

 

24 minutes ago, mike79 said:

People have been using device type switch for making quickapps , not all quickapps have on off buttons

It is kind of silly to use the switch devicetype if you don’t want to switch something. You can choose from a whole bunch of devicetypes, you choose a switch. 🙃

[mike79 8]

So as an developer yourself you are happily when all the controller types are hard coded and you cannot just developed a app from scratch with out a lot of hard-coded junk when you start with a empty template.

I stand buy my words that Fibaro apparently do not care about developers or they would never add such a feature.
 

[SmartHomeEddy 1,005]

You don’t understand the function of the devicetypes. 

[mike79 8]

yes i do even if i was gonna make a device that turn of on , maybe i would like to have a option like have a label over on of buttons, now we cannot have that.
Or maybe i would like to have a slider over the on off buttons instead of under , now we cannot have that either and so on.
Yes we can make a generic app and do all from scratch i get that, but the point is why hardcode stuff instead of just have them in the template so people can deside for them self.

Edited March 30, 2024 by mike79

[SmartHomeEddy 1,005]

You don’t like the on-off buttons of the switch and you don’t like to build your own button setup in the generic device. 
 

You just like to discuss.

[mike79 8]

Actually I like to build the buttoms myself , you just not seems to read what people write. 

Also you  just comment just about everytime thread there is some tiny critics and suggestions  on the fibaro products.

If people come with suggestions or request you come each time lecturing people even if it's just something people suggest .

Could be one of the things why this forum is totally dead and no-one  just about post.

Wonder why!

 

Edited March 30, 2024 by mike79

[SmartHomeEddy 1,005]

You just like to discuss

[mike79 8]

Lol and you don't.

[SmartHomeEddy 1,005]

Let’s see if someone wants to help you with this issue. 

[mike79 8]

23 minutes ago, SmartHomeEddy said:

Let’s see if someone wants to help you with this issue. 

Apparently you still cannot read, it is not a problem, it is a change they made let them answer for them self.
carry on!

[SmartHomeEddy 1,005]

Please login or register to see this image.

/monthly_2024_03/image.jpeg.ce26a2d28622d820de490cf60603cd2c.jpeg" />

[Neo Andersson 230]

This particular problem is not the greatest, as we can choose a generic type device, that has no buttons, and we can choose whatever we want, but in generalI absolutelly agree with @mike79. Possibilities for QA graphical UI elements are so poor, that even a well experienced programmer is having hard times to figure out a more complex dashboard for users. Its good to have predefined buttons for swithches, no doubt, but at least user could have a choice wheather the wants to see them, use them at all, or not, or just use them from the inner view of the QA or just from outside / through the icon press/..This is not only a problem regarding a On Off button, but the entire apporach to developers. I still do not get it, why could not they just give us more freedom, to give more designable elements, better sliders, carousels, button, label,color controlling etc..and freedom in general. Like control positioning is so strict, we can not align different controls, just those that are predefined, etc..so many things would  make our lives easier, but Mike this case can be solved by choosing a generic type device. Yes there is the HTML approach that allows some customization, but even HTML tags are so limited..anyway, i hope this will change to better in future

[m.roszak 763]

You need to understand that it is done like that to be in generic compliance with the system, if you are making a binary switch that is aligned with the system model this device will work with everything in the system (linked devices, scenes, profiles etc).
If we give too much free will it will mean that you can program a binary switch which won't work (like binary switch) with other system functions.

We were discussing the possibility of "show/hide" generic controls and actually it is in the backlog - not yet decided to be done because of the thing I mentioned above.
Especially that, as @SmartHomeEddy stated - it is always possible to use device types that do not contain any controls by default. 

I agree that UI is limited, from the code perspective it is possible to do a lot of other things but it is not easy.
We are doing a lot to simplify most of the things to make it easier to work with but we can't do everything in a short period of time.

On the other hand, you need to also understand that we have a lot of customers to look for, and power users actually writing their own integrations are in less than 2% of the people using the system. 
That's just numbers. The same like 90% (about) of the systems do not contain any QuickApp. Anyway, as you see - we still working on those, probably not as fast as you like but still.

[Neo Andersson 230]

1 hour ago, m.roszak said:

You need to understand that it is done like that to be in generic compliance with the system, if you are making a binary switch that is aligned with the system model this device will work with everything in the system (linked devices, scenes, profiles etc).
If we give too much free will it will mean that you can program a binary switch which won't work (like binary switch) with other system functions.

We were discussing the possibility of "show/hide" generic controls and actually it is in the backlog - not yet decided to be done because of the thing I mentioned above.
Especially that, as @SmartHomeEddy stated - it is always possible to use device types that do not contain any controls by default. 

I agree that UI is limited, from the code perspective it is possible to do a lot of other things but it is not easy.
We are doing a lot to simplify most of the things to make it easier to work with but we can't do everything in a short period of time.

On the other hand, you need to also understand that we have a lot of customers to look for, and power users actually writing their own integrations are in less than 2% of the people using the system. 
That's just numbers. The same like 90% (about) of the systems do not contain any QuickApp. Anyway, as you see - we still working on those, probably not as fast as you like but still.

@m.roszak Dear Michal, allow me to say a few words here. I can fully understand your words, and i know that a base structure is also limiting you from giving all the free hands to people. However one thing struck me from your answer. The ratio of QAs in installations. I have never ever had any installations, where some kind of QA would not be needed. Never. And i have quite a lot installations behind myself. There is always something that customer requires, mostly dashboards, or missing plugins from Fibaro (like irrigaton usable in the app). Ofcourse giving full free hand to instalers might end in some problems, so thats clear. However, QA designing, and mostly UI desing is so limited, that it is a nightmare to construct a QA that 1. fits into a APP screen (what native app does not even support. No full screen mode) 2. It is user frienldy enough to let users do what they want. Like at this point HTML and CSS is the only way to hack something, but in new app (which is really nice) this is struggling. Lot of unusable UI controls, almost strictly the button and a label is the way to go. No way near enough for a creative constructive design, that could be made. No way to align controls, there are hardcoded groups. No way to put a button and a label in a same row, that means we take up even more space vertically in the App what leads even to more problems. One single time picker control, or color picker control or a range control can save 1000 lines of code. Anyway, thanks for your answers. We will keep in touch. PI (At least fix the buggy existing controls. Switch type button, Slider, etc, and let the native QA go fullscreen.)

[mike79 8]

7 hours ago, Neo Andersson said:

The ratio of QAs in installations. I have never ever had any installations, where some kind of QA would not be needed. Never

I totally agree on that part almost every time i get a new device i would need to code some kind of app to make it work with everything else, i use off course the basic switches,  but mostly is the other things that one have to adapt ,also other none devices that needs to adapt to devices at home.
 

Examples
got gas prices app that make the lights blink when under a suddern price

Please login or register to see this image.

 

Got electric prices app that sets the price in home senter so data is correctly calculated alot of HTML went into this one control the water heater and many other devices in the house

 

traffic app that interact with AI and warns via lights if there is much traffic when i wake up so i can take the bus instead new firmware puts on/off buttons on that one

 

 

Bus app that makes the morning coffe on time , and light that tell med i have to hurry if i wanna catch the bus

 

Edited April 10, 2024 by mike79