Update readme.adoc: added limitation regarding UI pwd

[sjjh]

https://community.openems.io/t/how-to-debug-communication-error-with-shelly-pro-3em/10229/4

Shellys currently do not support authentication

• added a hint in the readme

Future Steps:

• add a warning channel if authentication failed
• add authentication

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:white_check_mark: All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop    #3204      +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage      58.87%   58.81%   -0.06%     
  Complexity       173      173              
=============================================
  Files           2619     2619              
  Lines         113027   113027              
  Branches        8318     8318              
=============================================
- Hits           66536    66460      -76     
- Misses         44000    44087      +87     
+ Partials        2491     2480      -11     

:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:

• :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• :package: JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[github-actions[bot]]

This PR has been automatically marked as stale due to inactivity. It will be closed in 7 days if no further activity occurs.

[sjjh]

@sfeilmeier this is IMHO trivial, would you mind merging it?

[sjjh]

thx @michaelgrill for the review

• Add a different warning channel if authentication fails, documentation is good but not everyone may read it.

I belive @Sn0w3y has implemented this already: https://github.com/OpenEMS/openems/pull/3248

• And as you mentioned in the community post the possibility to even authenticate

I think that this would be the best out of a users perspective, but as far as I understood @Sn0w3y it's not the best implementation wise.

[Sn0w3y]

thx @michaelgrill for the review

• Add a different warning channel if authentication fails, documentation is good but not everyone may read it.

I belive @Sn0w3y has implemented this already: https://github.com/OpenEMS/openems/pull/3248

• And as you mentioned in the community post the possibility to even authenticate

I think that this would be the best out of a users perspective, but as far as I understood @Sn0w3y it's not the best implementation wise.

Well basically it would be just better to Implement the Auth Flow - but in this Case tbh it is easier to just inform the User. So we should stick to the "Info" first imho.

So "implementationwise" we should keep my approach but in the long run we could Implement the Auth aswell.

Greetings!

[sjjh]

@michaelgrill how can we progress here? :)