Core: Unable to add second Synology DSM instance to HomeAssistant

[ThomasPrior]

The problem

Possibly similar to the issue described in the closed ticket #34991, adding a second Synology DSM instance fails.

Environment

arch | x86_64
-- | --
dev | false
docker | true
hassio | false
installation_type | Home Assistant Container
os_name | Linux
os_version | 4.4.59+
python_version | 3.8.5
timezone | UTC
version | 0.115.0
virtualenv | false

• Home Assistant Core release with the issue: 0.115.0, 0.114.x
• Last working Home Assistant Core release (if known): n/a
• Operating environment (OS/Container/Supervised/Core): Container
• Integration causing this issue: synology_dsm
• Link to integration documentation on our website: https://www.home-assistant.io/integrations/synology_dsm

Problem-relevant configuration.yaml

All configured via UI.

Traceback/Error logs

Nothing found in debug logs matching the time or failure message.

Additional information

[ThomasPrior]

This issue is still present in 0.116.0.

[stkiller]

Same here, trying to connect to virtual DSM.

On the DSM side, it shows successful login:

User [<home assistant user>] from [<home assistant ip>] logged in successfully via [DSM].

And shows as logged in the VDSM interface.

Env:

arch | x86_64
-- | --
chassis | vm
dev | false
docker | true
docker_version | 19.03.11
hassio | true
host_os | HassOS 4.14
installation_type | Home Assistant OS
os_name | Linux
os_version | 5.4.69
python_version | 3.8.5
supervisor | 249
timezone | UTC
version | 0.116.4
virtualenv | false

[mib1185]

Hi @ThomasPrior,
hi @stkiller,

please could you provide more detailed information for both NAS systems, so that it issue can be reproduced?

• model name
• systems hostname (_not FQDN/IP_)
• DSM version
• permissions of used user on DSM
• how was the setup done?:
  
  
  
  • auto-discovered setup (_only credentials were provided_)
  
  
  • manually via UI (_credentials and hostname/ip were provided_)
  
  
  • manually via YAML
  
  

In my environment (_0.116.4_) with a physical ds218play (_version:DSM 6.2.3-25426 Update 2, hostname:diskstation_) and a virtual XPnology (_model:ds918x, version:DSM 6.2.3-25426, hostname:xdiskstation_) - each time the admin user was used - it works fine ... both systems are added and shown on HomeAssistant properly.

regards,
Michael

[ThomasPrior]

Model Name: VirtualDSM
Hostname: vsynology
DSM: 6.2.3-25426 Update 2
Permissions: full administrator

[mib1185]

meanwhile I updated my comment with some more questions.
Please answer them, too (_and please for both NAS systems_).

regards,
Michael

[ThomasPrior]

Have tried both UI methods of getting the integration working with a virtual instance on three home assistant installs (1 venv, 2 docker). No change in results.

The physical Synology is:

Model: DS920+
Hostname: SynologyDS920
DSM: 6.2.3-25426 Update 2
Permissions: full admin
Method: Auto discovered.

[mib1185]

After analysing the code, the following conditions are raising the "Missing data:..." exception:

• serial-number could not be determined
• cpu_user_load utilization could not be determined
• either disks nor volumes could not be determined
• mac address(es) of network card(s) could not be determined

Therefore please check on the failing DSM

• if there are already disks and volumes configured and active
• an serial number is existing

[ThomasPrior]

A volume is configured on the virtual instance, but no disks exist as it's virtual. A serial number is present and is unique to the virtual instance.

[stkiller]

In my case, serial number, cpu usage and mac address(es) should be fine. But, I mount one of the shares using the following code on startup:

mount -t nfs <base_station_ip>:/volume2/surveillance /volume1/surveillance

which is a hack that allows me using a 'network share' in surveillance station. I guess I could've mounted a separate partition, but I didn't know then how much space do I need.

[Quentame]

Thanks @mib1185 to take a look at this 🙏

Let me know on your progression, and PR.

Unfortunately I can't test, I have "only" one NAS 😅

[stkiller]

So, using custom component with copied source, got this:

    # if (
    #     not api.information.serial
    #     or api.utilisation.cpu_user_load is None
    #     or not api.storage.disks_ids
    #     or not api.storage.volumes_ids
    #     or not api.network.macs
    # ):
    #     raise InvalidData
    _LOGGER.debug("HA!!!!!!!!!________________________________")
    _LOGGER.debug(api.information.serial)
    _LOGGER.debug(api.utilisation.cpu_user_load)
    _LOGGER.debug(api.storage.disks_ids)
    _LOGGER.debug(api.storage.volumes_ids)
    _LOGGER.debug(api.network.macs)

to output this:

2020-10-28 15:57:49 DEBUG (SyncWorker_12) [custom_components.synology_dsm.config_flow] HA!!!!!!!!!________________________________
2020-10-28 15:57:49 DEBUG (SyncWorker_12) [custom_components.synology_dsm.config_flow] <string_serial>
2020-10-28 15:57:49 DEBUG (SyncWorker_12) [custom_components.synology_dsm.config_flow] 5
2020-10-28 15:57:49 DEBUG (SyncWorker_12) [custom_components.synology_dsm.config_flow] []
2020-10-28 15:57:49 DEBUG (SyncWorker_12) [custom_components.synology_dsm.config_flow] ['volume_1', 'volume_2']
2020-10-28 15:57:49 DEBUG (SyncWorker_12) [custom_components.synology_dsm.config_flow] [<string_mac>]

Taking into consideration that this is a virtual DSM, it makes sense that disk_ids is an empty array.

On a slightly unrelated note, while trying to find source code, I downloaded it first from current master, and was able to reproduce #42493 on "0.116.4"

[mib1185]

@stkiller thanks for great analyse and the results.
Now the root cause is clear to me and I will think about a solution.

[mib1185]

The easiest solution should be simple remove the condition or not api.storage.disks_ids from _login_and_fetch_syno_info(), because all other references or usages of api.storage.disks_ids are conditional, but not required so that no regressions are expected (_of course has to be tested_).
I will create a new PR for that...

[ThomasPrior]

Just wanted to say thanks for looking into this and then so quickly putting forward a path to resolution.

[Quentame]

Hi @ThomasPrior & @stkiller,
Is 0.107.1 solves the issue on your side ?

On #42493 there is complain about authentication.
Do you also experience that ?

Thanks.