#Devicescanner
graceful terrace
As in, if we now add a unique id or change the name, it would create new entities (which we generally don't count as a breaking change)
rare juniper
There are a bunch of scannerentity migration PRs open actually
@sacred kindle has handled them before (and closed most of them).
my guts says it would be similar with the ones currently open
😄
graceful terrace
There are a bunch of scannerentity migration PRs open actually
yes, but I also saw there were none merged since ever, so I want to know what this will mean and close all of them except 1 😛
sacred kindle
We could try use an entity name that will generate the same entity_id as the old entity. The old entity won't be setup anymore and does not exist in the entity registry so there won't be a conflict.
graceful terrace
We could try use an entity name that will generate the same entity_id as the old...
Right but sometimes that's unavoidable, we've never really considered adding a unique id/migrating to has entity name as a breaking thing
(another bonus, opnsense, seems to use arp for devices, and given that we ourselves disallow get_mac as dependency because of ARP, I'm doubting if we should use the existing methods)
sacred kindle
Right but sometimes that's unavoidable, we've never really considered adding a u...
If nothing else changes just adding a unique id normally won't change the entity_id. Here the risk of a change in entity_id is greater as it's different entity classes.
If we can avoid a breaking change it's nice.
graceful terrace
Right, so we're kinda saying like, we should try not to break it, but if we can't then that's ok