Page 8 of 8

Re: SolarEdge production throttling from Domoticz

Posted: Monday 13 October 2025 13:01
by jvdz
Just had a look, and we could add a test in that code section to avoid the hard error in the log, and only generate a log message for "Verbose" stating the device is missing in the table, but it will simply skip processing the device for this heartbeat.
I can't test the change since I don't have Meters/Batteries, so please PM/email me when you like to test the change for me before I commit it in github.

Re: SolarEdge production throttling from Domoticz

Posted: Friday 17 October 2025 20:40
by jvdz
The additional tests to avoid the reported errors is committed to the MetersDev branch.

Re: SolarEdge production throttling from Domoticz

Posted: Friday 14 November 2025 15:18
by jannl
Testing with the meters dev branch, what does: status: Solaredge: Skip Sync as P1 not updated last (56603893) seconds and restore default update interval mean?

No updates now, switching back to Addies branch

Edit: I suppose P1 refers to smart meter data? In what format does it need to be? I use a youless for my smart meter, the data looks like this: 3406118;975140;496075;1460471;31;0

Re: SolarEdge production throttling from Domoticz

Posted: Friday 14 November 2025 15:45
by jvdz
Guess you defined a p1 idx which the plugin tries to use to sync its updates to solaredge with? This message simply states that the supplied idx did update for that number of seconds so it will use the default defined update timer seconds. All should still work fine.
The only thing used of the p1 device is the lastupdatetime.

Re: SolarEdge production throttling from Domoticz

Posted: Friday 14 November 2025 15:58
by jannl
A ok, clear.

Hm, switched to my test docker, same image as production. This seems to work

Edit: there is no check (on ID) whether a device is already present? I have a lot of duplicate devices now
Edit2: I obviously have to do more tests/checks
Edit3: Not all device occur twice, I guess the check is only done for the first device. The double deviceID's could be a problem I suppose