Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature/victron multiplus ess #1819

Open
wants to merge 17 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

opernikus
Copy link
Contributor

Hi Simon,
it's really bad luck that we developed a victron driver at the same time. Unfortunately we have two very different versions of an implementation. Both bundles support features which are missing in the other bundle.
The victron bundle is more than a simple driver. it is its own "ecosystem". I tried my very best to merge both bundles together.

Here are an overview of my changes:

  • renamend bundle and packages ..edge.ess.victron.. to ..edge.batteryinverter.victron.. (because in my opinion this should be a batterybundle and not an ess bundle, see below why)
  • added a pvinverter package
  • renamed your meter to meter.victron.acout
  • added a new meter meter.victorn.grid
  • renamed your ess package to batteryinverter.victron.rw (because your bundle can write to the battery)
  • added a new bundle batteryinverter.victron.ro (because our bundle is only a monitor right now)

Note that there is a generic ESS implementation, e.g. ESS Generic Managed Symmetric. To get an ESS you can use the ESS generic controller and connect it to a batteryinverter and to a battery and you will have full ESS capability. In my opinion we should use this mechanism also on victron. And I think, that you may not have heard of this.

There is one step missing on the integration. We should merge batteryinverter.victron.rw and batteryinverter.victron.ro.
I already wanted to do that, but it took my the whole day to merge our changes in your bundle and to refactor the code. And I fear that this merge will took another day.
Both of us should be able to run their project with the current solution. So it is ok for me.

Due to our parallel work, this change is a massive change of your code. I don't know how to handle this and I hope you'll go easy on me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
3 participants