Support UnifiedPush

[hockeymikey]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
UnifiedPush is an open source push notification protocol that is implemented by a few apps such as NextPush or ntfysh. After installing one of these implementations (called distributors), you can select them for using them for push notifications in apps such as Element or other apps.
Describe the solution you'd like
I'd like to be able to use UnifiedPush for my notifications in the app. This would allow users to have push notifications but not rely on FCM and Google.

Describe alternatives you've considered, if any
There is none.

Additional context
I think the links above to their website is a good starting point for understanding the protocol. For implementation on the app side, I think going into one of the apps that support unifiedpush like Element would be a good place to draw inspiration. Here is their issue ticket for element to see their discussion and PRs for the implementation.

[dshokouhi]

This needs to first be supported in HA core before the app can consider it. I think we should hold off on this request until then.

[dshokouhi]

Let's close this until core has its own request and it gets implemented until then the app can't support this.

[hockeymikey]

@dshokouhi But why close it? It's good to track rather than having to duplicate it.

[hockeymikey]

https://community.home-assistant.io/t/add-unifiedpush-support-to-home-assistant-android-core/446344

[julianfoad]

S1m of the UnifiedPush developers, in UnifiedPush matrix room, says (paraphrased):

A server supporting webpush is enough to support UnifiedPush. It looks like the HA core supports webpush, so the issue can be reopened :)

There is example code in the UP-Example app, for how to get UnifiedPush notifications with webpush.

There are currently open discussions to update the U.P. spec to make it clearly compatible with webpush. (SERV_1.2.0 #37, Retransmission #34).

Terminology:

UnifiedPush	Webpush
End-user app	user agent
push server	push service
endpoint	push resources

[dshokouhi]

unfortunately its still not that simple, the current mobile_app integration is still dependent on firebase and if not using local push will default to doing things like rate limiting notifications. Considerations will need to be made in the integration before the app should support it.

[schklom]

@dshokouhi I'm far from an expert, but it sounds to me like there is a misunderstanding.
Implementing UP does not mean getting rid of Firebase. UP can fallback to it

https://unifiedpush.org/developers/embedded_fcm/

If you want your app to fallback to FCM on Android if:

1. Your user doesn’t have any UnifiedPush Distributors and
2. They have Google Services enabled

This is for you. You can embed an FCM Distributor, and if the user doesn’t have another distributor, this one will be used. These libraries basically act like UnifiedPush Distributors, but are internal to the app and pass notifications through FCM.

There are 2 libraries doing it: one using the Google Firebase library and another (beta) entirely FOSS* that doesn’t.

About

1. The Android Embedded FCM Distributor is the original embedded distributor. It uses the official Google library for FCM support. However, it is proprietary thus cannot be included on app-stores like F-Droid.

[Venefilyn]

@dshokouhi just checking if you saw the above. I do not want to use Google and this would be a huge bonus for me

Given that it wouldn't he a replacement it seems very possible with the current implementation. It also means it could support F-Droid better as UnifiedPush wouldn't have to be stripped from that distribution

[NoelGisler]

@dshokouhi

can you please reopen this or mark it as "not planned"?

It is apparently supported in Core and possible with FCM, so the original reason for closing it doesn't stand anymore.
I understand if you don't have the resources/motivation to do this, but if that is so, please tell us straight :)

All I ask is for you to look at it and communicate your conclusion with us, because leaving it in this pseudo-dead / pseudo-alive status is very frustrating :)

[Handrail9]

@dshokouhi

can you please reopen this or mark it as "not planned"?

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was closed as "Not Planned". I also would love for this feature to happen but I believe you either made a typo or were not clear in what you were asking for.

[p1gp1g]

@dshokouhi
can you please reopen this or mark it as "not planned"?

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was closed as "Not Planned". I also would love for this feature to happen but I believe you either made a typo or were not clear in what you were asking for.

I think this is because it has been closed with the following message, while the core already has it implemented. It means it has been closed for the wrong reasons :)

Let's close this until core has its own request and it gets implemented until then the app can't support this.