Product identifier is missing in config file for Yale YRD210

[PBphl]

Checklist

• I have read and followed the above instructions

• I have checked the troubleshooting section and my problem is not described there.

• I have read the changelog and my problem was not mentioned there or the fix did not work.

Describe the issue

What is happening?
The device is not being properly identified as a Yale YRD210 lock. According to Homeseer support "The fingerprint for the lock needs to be added to the list of devices."

I have included a pdf file that shows what is being reported for the Product Manufacturer and Product Identifiers.
I have also included a screen shot of the zwaveJS search for Product Manufacturer: 0x0109. There is no entry for the Product Identifier reported by the YALE YRD210 lock with is 0x0004-0xffff.

Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. Go to '...'
2. Click on '...'
3. Scroll down to '...'
4. See error

Anything else we should know?

Screen captures.pdf

Software versions

Driver (node-zwave-js): 12.9.1

Z-Wave JS UI: 9.13.3

Home Assistant Z-Wave Integration: ...

Home Assistant Z-Wave JS Addon: ...

ioBroker.zwave2 Adapter: ...

If you are using something non-standard, tell us here: ...

Device information

Manufacturer: Yale
Model name: YRD210
Node ID: ...

Checklist

• I made sure to provide a driver log on level debug.

• The log includes a re-interview of the problematic device (if applicable).

• The log includes the problematic interaction with the device (if applicable).

• I provided the node ID of the problematic device (if applicable).

Upload Logfile

No response

[zwave-js-bot]

👋 Hey @PBphl!

Thanks for opening an issue! It doesn't look like you provided a logfile though. While not strictly necessary for every issue, having a driver log on loglevel debug is required to diagnose most issues.

Please consider uploading a logfile that captures your problem. As a reminder, here's how to create one:

• Z-Wave JS UI
• Home Assistant Z-Wave Integration
• ioBroker.zwave2 Adapter

[AlCalzone]

Escalated to an issue: #6898