Skip to content

docs(nibe): the Local REST API is enabled on the pump, not in the app - #737

Open
HuggeK wants to merge 1 commit into
srcfl:masterfrom
HuggeK:nibe-doc-setup
Open

docs(nibe): the Local REST API is enabled on the pump, not in the app#737
HuggeK wants to merge 1 commit into
srcfl:masterfrom
HuggeK:nibe-doc-setup

Conversation

@HuggeK

@HuggeK HuggeK commented Jul 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Step 1 of the pump setup said to enable the Local REST API in the myUplink app. It is enabled on the pump's own screen, in the installer menu that also holds 7.5.15 — no app, no myUplink account. Confirmed on an S735.

The distinction is the point of the whole driver. A local-only integration that quietly required a cloud account to commission would not be one, and #537's whole argument for the local API over myuplink.lua rests on it.

The app still displays the certificate fingerprint, so that reference stays — next to the openssl command that does not need it.

Where this came from

It surfaced while classifying every catalog driver by how it is commissioned (srcfl/device-drivers#56, which files nibe_local as setup: [device_screen]). The pump's owner corrected the documented procedure from the hardware. This is the second correction to this file's setup story, after aidMode turned out not to be the write gate either — both times the doc described a NIBE feature by the route someone assumed, rather than the one the pump offers.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Step 1 said to enable the Local REST API in the myUplink app. It is enabled
on the pump's own screen, in the installer menu that also holds 7.5.15 --
no app and no myUplink account. Confirmed on an S735.

The distinction is the point of the whole driver: a local-only integration
that quietly required a cloud account to commission would not be one. The
app still displays the certificate fingerprint, so that reference stays,
next to the openssl command that does not need it.

Co-authored-by: HuggeK <48095810+HuggeK@users.noreply.github.com>
@HuggeK
HuggeK marked this pull request as ready for review July 31, 2026 12:59
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants