#Risco
surreal umbra
Does it use an injected clientsession?
And sidenote, I think this question would've been a better fit in integration owners or developers, as this isn't directly focused to the core team
severe silo
You're right, sorry
and yes, we're passing the session to the library:
https://github.com/home-assistant/core/blob/f2c20fedebbe34e415e9c0887bd6fdbf4c1131a5/homeassistant/components/risco/__init__.py#L135
severe silo
I'll try that
severe silo
It's failing with async_create_clientsession as well
surreal umbra
How did you test new session?
severe silo
Custom component, using the new session
I also reached out to Risco with these findings, but not sure I'll get a response
Is not using a HA session an acceptable solution?
surreal umbra
I guess that would work, It's interesting why it doesn't take a newly created one
severe silo
Is there a way to mimic an HA session outside of HA for testing purposes? What's "different" about the session? User agent?
surreal umbra
SERVER_SOFTWARE = (
f"{APPLICATION_NAME}/{__version__} "
f"aiohttp/{aiohttp.__version__} Python/{sys.version_info[0]}.{sys.version_info[1]}"
)
this is the user agent
that one is indeed different
I believe there are some more things, you can check the aiohttp_client class for that
severe silo
It's the user agent indeed. If it contains "HomeAssistant" the API is returning 403. Trying to fix this with Risco. What can we do if they can't help?
surreal umbra
Find Jens 😂
I guess change user agent, but like, if they are specifically blocking us, then it will become a cat and mouse game
severe silo
Yeah, he's on the correspondence 🙂
surreal umbra
@severe silo if you can change the user agent in the library, we can ship that today
severe silo
as in override the agent in the existing session?
severe silo
Ok, can I do this with the shared session or do I also need to switch to async_create_clientsession?
surreal umbra
you can just pass it as a header to your request in the library
the the shared session is fine
but you have to be quick probably
for 2026.4.2
surreal umbra
Seems like it. Just done with dinner so didn't check
severe silo
We were blocked because of rate limit 🤦♂️ . I guess I'll add a limit to the polling frequency
surreal umbra
You got that from Jens?
severe silo
From his contact
severe silo
I guess we passed some threshold
surreal umbra
they have one per user agent?
severe silo
I don't have all the details yet (we're scheduling a call), but I guess their WAF picked it up. The main user agent would be their app, so HA probably does stand out
I don't think they get a lot of web traffic
severe silo
Good call with Risco. They'll make sure we don't get blocked again, but asked that we set a polling minimum (seems that a lot of users are setting a 1 second polling frequency). They'll also suggest a push-based mechanism going forward.
surreal umbra
push based is always nice
you can implement a debouncer in the coordinator
tado and iometer have that for example
Like when I have meetings with companies I am also like, yes, thank you for having us use your API, and if there are people that do not make use of it correctly, then feel free to take action
severe silo
We explicitly ask for a scan interval (this was before the recommended mechanism), so I was thinking of just adding a minimum in the options flow (and migrate existing config entries), until we set up the push based option
severe silo
yeah, but that would mean two actionable breaking changes vs 1
so:
- break change - we no longer have scan interval, please configure it yourself
- scratch that, no more scanning at all
vs.
- The new minimum is 5 seconds. You don't need to do anything, just know that if you had it under 5s, your automations are not going to trigger as quickly
- No more scanning, you don't need to do anything
And I can actually just add the minimum in the coordinator, and keep the options flow as is