Energy: support all the things

[karwosts]

I've read probably 500 times the question "Why don't we support X in the energy dashboard", and I wonder if it would be acceptible to allow for just adding any kind of generic section.

Imagine in the settings page a dialog:

• pick a category name
• pick any existing sensor device class
• pick a color (?)

This creates a new category similar to what we currently have for gas/water. Any statistic matching that device class w/ convertible unit can be added to that category.

Then in main energy panel we just loop over each category and include it just like the other sources.

• Add a chart of the consumption
• Allow for setting cost/price entities
• Add it to the sources table of consumptions/cost

I don't really think it would be that hard to do as all the code is there, we just need to replace hardcoded class-based cards a dynamic one and we can mostly reuse all the existing stuff, but just allow people to add their utilities that we don't hardcode support for, such as:

• oil
• wood
• biomass
• hot water
• maybe additional electric things but you want to plot it as a separate graph for some reason (ev charger? heat pump?)

It would just be pretty flexible and user can use the feature however they want.

I know we can also say no and just say "user can make their own dashboard", but that's lacking a lot of features that we currently support for energy:

• can't graph with same look and feel (no stacked bar charts)
• no compare mode
• no automatic cost tracking
• can't add to the cost table

So that's got quite some limitations.

[balloob]

I would rather have us define oil, heat etc, than have a freeform dialog with all the things. That way, we know what is going on. Because today our energy dashboard is in phase 1: we show you the things. Step 2 is that we want to start predicting things, help you make decisions for your home based on things we learn from the data. For that to happen, we need to know what data is there.

So from my point of view:

1. Yes to standardizing backend/frontend to allow easier adding types
2. Yes to standardizing the frontend to not show all the boxes, but allow users to pick types to add "Add water", "Add heat" etc. That way, we don't have to overwhelm with things users don't need. Quick edit on the Water dashboard would be for the water settings!
3. Let's open a couple of architecture issues, one for each type we want to have and let's discuss!

Point 1 and 2 don't need an architecture proposal. It's a cleanup

But let's do keep the types, so we are in control of what we add. I'm already so-so on upstream water, but I doubt we ever need upstream oil.

[karwosts]

Sounds good I'll open a couple discussions for the most common types I have encountered.

[karwosts]

Will start with this one: #1313