#[Twente Mileu](https://github.com/home-
pliant briar
I think so, like I expect it to change the address, and if that contradicts with the unique id requirement, then I think it's okay to exempt
rare falcon
same
sonic needle
Why not update the unique id so it's possible to update the address rather than ripping the integration and setting it up again if the address needs to change (no idea what integration this is)? 🤷♂️
pliant briar
Thrash pickup
pliant briar
Why not update the unique id so it's possible to update the address rather than ...
That'd also require the unique id of the entry to change + devices and entities and rely on the entry id instead
Which would also work, but that then contradicts with the unique id rule
Or at least, we could abort on the contents of the entry, but we explicitly always state we want a unique id if we have it available
sonic needle
Like I said, don't know the integration so maybe it's not feasible or not something that would happen in real life anyway 🤷♂️
pliant briar
I mean it could
sonic needle
If the address can change, then it's not something that should be used as unique id to begin with.
But now I checked what the integration is and I would say it should not allow reconfigure. If someone moves house they should set up the integration from scratch...
fallen flax
Why do we need to use the address as unique id? We could just not allow setting up the same address twice.
Generally we don't want to use things that are user configurable as unique id.
We can use the config entry id as unique id for entities etc.
rare falcon
I guess so. unique_id is really only used as duplicate detection and since the device/service in this case is entirely user-configurable we should rather just check if the address matches an already existing entity instead of using a unique_id.
I'll write that up
crimson mural
Why do we need to use the address as unique id? We could just not allow setting ...
I'm not, I'm using the unique ID provided by the platform
it is an upstream unique identifier for the object (like for example for a device in ZHA we use their hardware address as well)
I disagree with the proposal, as you are basically saying: We are allowing users to replace the device or service with anything else.
fallen flax
What would happen if we would allow changing the address of a config entry?
crimson mural
it would be a different object (with potentially different entities), just like changing one motion sensor with another
not every address has the same garbage pick up properties for example. My address right now, I have plastics pick up, my previous address I didn't have that
(those can differ per house number level actually)