Yolink Local API

[Panda88]

It is mostly to check if all service work. I had some i could not get to work but it may have improvef

[TJF1960]

@Panda88, It is working well for me as well. On this test setup I am running a temp sensor, motion and plug switch.

Thank you for all the help and support in getting it running!

-Tim

[sjenkins]

17 hours ago, TJF1960 said:

@Panda88, It is working well for me as well. On this test setup I am running a temp sensor, motion and plug switch.

Thank you for all the help and support in getting it running!

-Tim

I forget to mention my devices working on the local-hub:

leak sensors

power failure

temp indoor

temp/humidity with display

outdoor temp

garage control & sensor

water valve control 

[paulbates]

Question for anyone testing... did your testing include disabling the internet on your router, or pulling the internet cable out of the router and seeing if things continue to work?

[TJF1960]

That is a great question, I have not been able to schedule a time with my family for shutting down internet in my house, but as I think about it, it would only interrupt for 20 minutes or so I would think. Maybe I can test this weekend before everyone is up and around.

@sjenkinsHave you been able to test and confirm the local hub delivers locally when the internet is interrupted?

Or anyone else for that matter?

Thanks!

-Tim

[Panda88]

I did some rudimentary test and it worked.  I cut the data into the modem when I tested 

[smorgasbord]

Aren't there things one needs to do to set up to run locally, beyond just using the local-capable hub? I recall seeing something about automations, but can't find it now.

Also, if one is running two hubs (for distance), then what happens when the internet goes out?

thanks!

[sjenkins]

3 hours ago, TJF1960 said:

That is a great question, I have not been able to schedule a time with my family for shutting down internet in my house, but as I think about it, it would only interrupt for 20 minutes or so I would think. Maybe I can test this weekend before everyone is up and around.

@sjenkinsHave you been able to test and confirm the local hub delivers locally when the internet is interrupted?

Or anyone else for that matter?

Thanks!

-Tim

I keep meaning to but haven't found the window when I won't get yelled at by the family.

I'm off this week so its on the TODO list.  I will try to validate @Panda88 's test.

I will say that I have been running completely on the Beta plugin with no issues for that last number of weeks.  Moved all my programs over will all good.

 

[sjenkins]

Got around to checking @TJF1960 , can confirm that it does just fine work assuming your router keeps your local network up and going.  To explain when I pulled the cable from the modem all was fine ; when I pulled the ethernet from the back to modem (to my router) my router took down the majority of my local network.  One to add to my TODO list as I take one off.

[Geddy]

16 hours ago, smorgasbord said:

Aren't there things one needs to do to set up to run locally, beyond just using the local-capable hub? I recall seeing something about automations, but can't find it now.

I think a few posts back (maybe a page back) there was something from @sjenkins about connecting a device to the local hub. I don't have this so haven't been testing, but I would think with the YoLink setup is dependent on how the devices are added. 

 

16 hours ago, smorgasbord said:

if one is running two hubs (for distance), then what happens when the internet goes out?

@Panda88 commented that at the time additional hubs are to extend the network. If those are cloud hubs then they probably wouldn't communicate, but I don't exactly know how hubs talk to each other. I would expect if a device was added/linked with only the local hub active then another hub was placed for range it's possible it would still report. Would need to test for personal use case unless others already have and can comment. 

I only need one hub with the amazing range of YoLink and only having items inside the house I don't need to get to other buildings or outside areas. 

I do like the idea of a local hub though, but this is why the current YoLink hub is on my "IoT UPS" so it is online if the power goes out. I don't run anything critical enough to worry if there's an internet outage, but do want to keep up with the temp in fridge/freezer if the power goes out for too long. 

[smorgasbord]

Just wanted to point out that Belkin's recent termination of WeMo support AND cloud service shows us exactly why completely local control and local setup is needed. 

I set up a lighting automation system last century, yes in the 1990s. Although the company (LiteTouch) is no longer around, I'm still able to not only keep the system running, but to add new devices and capabilities to it since it's all programmed and run locally. Cloud is great for monitoring/controlling away from home, but the in-house stuff always need to work as long as the hardware lasts.

[paulbates]

"Cloud dependent" is probably the way to say it. Rainmachine and Venstar are examples of technologies that can be programmed and used on local APIs without their cloud capabilities that are nice to haves, but not essentials. (Both companies are still around)

Edited August 19 by paulbates

[Panda88]

If Yolink were to stop, we would not be able to add new devices etc.  It should keep running with what is already there, but adding new devices etc. still rely on the cloud  / App

[smorgasbord]

31 minutes ago, Panda88 said:

adding new devices etc. still rely on the cloud 

Well, that sucks.

[TJF1960]

Hello @Panda88,

The local hub has been working for me as well. I am at a crossroads and would like your input. I can move over all of my Yolink devices to the new local hub and run it. However I am wondering what your plans are for integration? Integrating it into the current production version or keeping it a stand alone plugin?

I would rather not move all the upwards of 40ish devices, fix all the programs only to find out that I will have to do it again. I am sure you understand.

Thanks very much!

-Tim

Oh, forgot, I received notification the trial period was almost up for the local plugin. I already have the paid production plugin, will there be a fee for the beta version? How can I correct it?

 

Edited Sunday at 10:45 PM by TJF1960
additional info

[Panda88]

I am trying to find a way to start the node in 2 modes - local and non-local.  If I find an acceptable way it will stay as 1 node - otherwise I will likely remain as two separate nodes with the same code for the devices 

I will start looking at this again as I am back home now 

[sjenkins]

14 hours ago, TJF1960 said:

Oh, forgot, I received notification the trial period was almost up for the local plugin. I already have the paid production plugin, will there be a fee for the beta version? How can I correct it?

 

@Panda88,

Would be great if you could "refresh" the beta and kick out the time period until you are more ready to either merge or not-merge the two.

I was so excited about local that I DID move my programs over to the beta.  No worries I will move to whatever solution you come up with, but would be nice to hang out with the current set-up until then.

Thanks again for the efforts, this plugin is now part of the plumbing of my home automation ; literally & figuratively. 

[Panda88]

Do you suggest I generate a new version - I thinking touching it does not extend the trial period - maybe I can extend the duration of the trial - but I am not sure how the system reacts to it (after the fact) 

The more I think about it - I think releasing a version supporting both is possible but at the same time it seems risky to overwrite the existing node for people without local hubs - implementation will be local by default with fall back to cloud only - I hope I can work with Michel/UDI to have people be able to get an upgrade to the new one when moving to local/hybrid version - It does not seem to be possible to do it as an add-on to the existing the way the billing system works 

 

 

[sjenkins]

8 minutes ago, Panda88 said:

Do you suggest I generate a new version - I thinking touching it does not extend the trial period - maybe I can extend the duration of the trial - but I am not sure how the system reacts to it (after the fact) 

The more I think about it - I think releasing a version supporting both is possible but at the same time it seems risky to overwrite the existing node for people without local hubs - implementation will be local by default with fall back to cloud only - I hope I can work with Michel/UDI to have people be able to get an upgrade to the new one when moving to local/hybrid version - It does not seem to be possible to do it as an add-on to the existing the way the billing system works 

 

 

I do think just a new version, same content just bump the version in the development screen & push out the trial time period.

Just my opinion, I agree trying to do this in one remote and local version sounds like a nightmare.  I at least have never written a program right the first time.  You have made this thing really stable ; hate to ruin that.  Michel/UDI are really helpful in everything but consider this ; you are truly adding a feature which was not part of the program we originally purchased.  I can only speak for myself but I am more than willing to pass you a few bucks for the effort & support involved.  My vote is put out a new Yo-link local and call it a separate plugin with a fair one time price.  Just one vote but you could put it out to the population.

 

[TJF1960]

I fully agree with @sjenkins, He beat me to it!

One note of possible promise. In my brief testing between production and beta, it looks like Yolink plugin uses the same reference number of each device. I was able to delete Yolink, and install the local version in the same slot. Once you get all the devices ported over to the local hub, all, theoretically should work and all programs should work as be as well. I only tried this with 4 devices, but it worked perfectly. But I have over 40 so time will tell.

-Tim

[Panda88]

updated version to 0.0.6  - and added 60 days - let me know if it works

I will start looking at the final integration - have a few changes I am working on in the yolink node that I want to complete first  (they will port over) 

[oberkc]

@Panda88: I have yet to install the new Yolink hub.  I have had some other issues (such as moving over to the EISY from Polisy) to work out first, but I would be fully understanding of a second Yolink plugin specifically for the local hub, keeping the original version for the original hub.  The only downside I could see for you was maintaining two versions.

[GTench]

@Panda88My vote would be for 2 versions with possible migration to one version in the future when testing is complete and things look stable. I would likely migrate to the local version at some point but currently I make use of Yolink direct connect for anything that are critical for me to be internet independent like leak sensors. Really liking the reliability and battery life of yolink devices.

Gary

[sjenkins]

13 hours ago, Panda88 said:

updated version to 0.0.6  - and added 60 days - let me know if it works

I will start looking at the final integration - have a few changes I am working on in the yolink node that I want to complete first  (they will port over) 

works ; nothing blew-up ; thanks!

Update: the trial period message comes back saying "this node server will expire soon", assuming that 60 days is "soon"

 

Edited 2 hours ago by sjenkins