When I update the fields in my recipe (or in a single device), I often wonder whether I’ve correctly propagated the changes to all devices in our application, or if I’ve left things in an inconsistent state.
It would be very helpful to have mechanisms for tying devices to their device-recipes/verifying consistency/preventing inconsistency.
I understand this might be uncomfortable to enforce across-the-board (sometimes it’s nice to have one black-sheep device with a special field or whatever). Maybe it would be possible to selectively enforce this mechanism by declaring certain devices to be ‘identical with’ the recipe, vs. ‘derived from’ the recipe.
Hi @Alexander_Farley,
I can definitely see a use case for this. I will make a feature request and let you know if it is implemented!
Have a great day,
Julia
1 Like
I agree. From another post it was pointed out that that bulk device update was high on the roadmap already.
I was just typing up a request for this. +1
2 Likes
Just wondering if there has been further consideration for bulk updating of attributes. Its a significant inconvenience when deploying a lot of devices and a new sensor is added. A workflow is a work around but its a bit complex.
Hi @paul_wareham,
The most recent update on this request was actually today when it was given a +1 by another team. This does seem to be some highly requested functionality; I will update you again should anything new arise.
Thanks!
Julia
+1 for this feature, it can be critical when using the platform at scale…
1 Like
+1
A version control for recipes would also be helpful.
1 Like