OSRAM SMART+ Motion Sensor not supported by Ledvance OTA server

[kiall]

The OSRAM Smart+ Motion Sensor is not supported by the Ledvance OTA server, and
results in the following errors being logged:

zigbee2mqtt    | zigbee2mqtt:error 2020-02-29 15:24:08: Failed to call 'OTAUpdate' 'onZigbeeEvent' (AssertionError [ERR_ASSERTION]: No image available for manufacturerCode '4174' imageType '48'
zigbee2mqtt    |     at getImageMeta (/app/node_modules/zigbee-herdsman-converters/ota/ledvance.js:15:5)
zigbee2mqtt    |     at runMicrotasks (<anonymous>)
zigbee2mqtt    |     at async isNewImageAvailable (/app/node_modules/zigbee-herdsman-converters/ota/ledvance.js:48:18)
zigbee2mqtt    |     at async Object.isUpdateAvailable (/app/node_modules/zigbee-herdsman-converters/ota/common.js:159:23)
zigbee2mqtt    |     at async OTAUpdate.onZigbeeEvent (/app/lib/extension/otaUpdate.js:31:27)

[kiall]

Related to #1003

[kiall]

@pedrolamas - thoughts on this one? Ideally, we wouldn't get error level logs for not supported stuff, but at the same time, maybe the error log helps us track down which OSRAM devices are actually Centralite so they can have the OTA line removed?

[pedrolamas]

The fact is that by looking at the list, the manufacturer code 4174 is not there, so I don't think these will ever be supported...

Now the question is if we should just go ahead and disable the Ledvance ota from these devices, but I leave that one to @Koenkk to provide his insight!

[kiall]

Now the question is if we should just go ahead and disable the Ledvance ota from these devices, but I leave that one to @Koenkk to provide his insight!

Yep - If these devices are Centralite only - and the Motion Sensor-A zigbeeModel is never used by Ledvance supported stuff, then it makes sense to remove the OTA implementation for it IMO.

[pedrolamas]

Would be great if we had a way to get all "devices.js" entries with the corresponding manufacturerCode and productId!

[Koenkk]

We should indeed chose what to do with this:

• If there is any chance that it will be supported in the future, it should stay there.
• If chances are close to zero, let's just remove it.

What do you think?

[pedrolamas]

I'm inclined to remove anything that doesn't match the two known Levance supported manufacturer codes (4364 and 4489), such as this one.

So my vote is to remove.

[kiall]

We should indeed chose what to do with this:

• If there is any chance that it will be supported in the future, it should stay there.
• If chances are close to zero, let's just remove it.

What do you think?

Obviously, I suggest removing it too. But if it's kept, it shouldn't log an error level message/trace every few minutes :)

[Koenkk]

Sounds good, let's remove it.

Thanks!