[boschshc] Initial contribution - Bindings for Bosch Smart Home devices

[coeing]

Hi there,

@stefan-kaestle started a fork of your repository in November 2019 to implement the bindings for Bosch Smart Home devices which are pretty popular in Germany. @GerdZanker and I joined earlier this year.

Together we managed to built a good base for a first release, which already has the base structure to setup and communicate with the Bosch Smart Home controller and supports a lot of devices:

• Bosch In-Wall switches
• Bosch Smart Plugs (use "in-wall-switch" thing too).
• Bosch TwinGuard smoke detector
• Bosch Window/Door contacts
• Bosch Motion Detector
• Bosch Shutter Control in-wall
• Bosch Thermostat
• Bosch Climate Control

Before we continue our development we'd like to do a first public release to gather user feedback and your feedback as openHAB maintainers :)

We already found some fellow openHAB users who tested pre-release versions and apart from some minor issues which we fixed, they were already quite content with the result (and had some ideas for enhancements for the next version of course :) ).

We tried to get some upfront feedback about our code base from one of your maintainers, but got no answer, so we thought we just create a pull request to discuss any further issues here: https://community.openhab.org/t/towards-merging-the-new-bosch-shc-binding/101952

You can find the fork here: https://github.com/stefan-kaestle/openhab2-addons We already tried to sign-off each commit and follow your coding guidelines (https://www.openhab.org/docs/developer/development/guidelines.html), but might have missed some points as it is our first contribution to your project.

We have a thread in the community forum: https://community.openhab.org/t/will-there-be-a-bosch-smart-home-binding

The last pre-release is up-to-date apart from some file moving: https://github.com/stefan-kaestle/openhab2-addons/releases/tag/v1.0-beta.1

Feel free to ask any questions and let us know what work needs to be done before our work can be merged. Thanks for your help and for your great open-source Smart Home platform!

[TravisBuddy]

Travis tests have failed

Hey @coeing,
please read the following log in order to understand the failure reason. There might also be some helpful tips along the way.
It will be awesome if you fix what is wrong and commit the changes.

[Hilbrand]

Can you post a comment if you think all comments are addressed so we can have a second look?

[GerdZanker]

Another comment. The added library is rather big, and it looks only a small part is used. When you add an empty file shrinkBundle.profile next to this bindings pom.xml the packaging will only include thoses classes from the library that are actually used. This does shrink this bindings jar significantly.

I will give it a try.

[coeing]

Can you post a comment if you think all comments are addressed so we can have a second look?

Sure, will do. Right now we are still busy fixing some of your commented code. Once we resolved every conversation, I'll post a comment and reference you and @fwolter :)

[GerdZanker]

Another comment. The added library is rather big, and it looks only a small part is used. When you add an empty file shrinkBundle.profile next to this bindings pom.xml the packaging will only include thoses classes from the library that are actually used. This does shrink this bindings jar significantly.

I will give it a try.

Unfortunately this results in

java.lang.ClassFormatError: LVTT entry for 'stateClass' in class file org/openhab/binding/boschshc/internal/devices/bridge/BoschSHCBridgeHandler does not match any LVT entry

The size is related to the used bouncycastle libs for the certificate creation.

[openhab-bot]

Automatic code migration to openHAB 3 succeeded.

The resulting code can be found at https://ci.openhab.org/job/openHAB-Addons-Migration/31/artifact/bundles/.

You can download the migrated code from there and create a new PR against the master branch of the openhab-addons repo to contribute it for being included in openHAB 3.x.

Please see this issue about the details on how to proceed with your existing PR.

[GerdZanker]

Hello @coeing,
looks like we are too slow to keep track with openHAB. But I'm sorry, I can't spent more time on the code even if a would like to.

You can download the migrated code from there and create a new PR against the master branch of the openhab-addons repo

It seems to be the best to switch asap to openHAB3 with Java11, new base code and the migrated add-on code, because up to now only my last "http fix" needs to be ported.

What do you think?

[coeing]

Hello @coeing,
looks like we are too slow to keep track with openHAB. But I'm sorry, I can't spent more time on the code even if a would like to.

You can download the migrated code from there and create a new PR against the master branch of the openhab-addons repo

It seems to be the best to switch asap to openHAB3 with Java11, new base code and the migrated add-on code, because up to now only my last "http fix" needs to be ported.

What do you think?

Yes, probably the best way to go. We would have to support openHAB 3 anyway, so it would be easier to develop against one code base only. The changes from 2.5 to 3 do not seem to be too big for bindings, so I'm pretty confident we can get it done quickly. I just downloaded the artifacts and copied them over. I will push them to a new branch which I rebase on openHAB 3.

[coeing]

@Hilbrand @fwolter We created a new branch "bosch-shc-3.0" which is based on openhab/main. Should we start a new pull request for that branch and we close this one?

[Hilbrand]

Do what you feel comfortable with. In general we suggest people not to open new pr's as this would make reviewing more difficult because reviews comments are more difficult to track. But with the breaking history changes this might be more difficult for people to know how to do it correctly. If you create a new pr, please do close this pr.

[coeing]

Do what you feel comfortable with. In general we suggest people not to open new pr's as this would make reviewing more difficult because reviews comments are more difficult to track. But with the breaking history changes this might be more difficult for people to know how to do it correctly. If you create a new pr, please do close this pr.

Alright, thanks for the quick message! I started a draft of a new pull request (#8629). We need to fix one more issue, afterwards I will close this pull request and open the other one.

[fwolter]

Closing in favor of #8629