Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add weather warning sensor to IPMA #134054

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

dgomes
Copy link
Contributor

@dgomes dgomes commented Dec 26, 2024

Proposed change

Adds a new sensor, providing weather warnings.

Type of change

  • Dependency upgrade
  • Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New integration (thank you!)
  • New feature (which adds functionality to an existing integration)
  • Deprecation (breaking change to happen in the future)
  • Breaking change (fix/feature causing existing functionality to break)
  • Code quality improvements to existing code or addition of tests

Additional information

  • This PR fixes or closes issue: fixes #
  • This PR is related to issue:
  • Link to documentation pull request:

Checklist

  • The code change is tested and works locally.
  • Local tests pass. Your PR cannot be merged unless tests pass
  • There is no commented out code in this PR.
  • I have followed the development checklist
  • I have followed the perfect PR recommendations
  • The code has been formatted using Ruff (ruff format homeassistant tests)
  • Tests have been added to verify that the new code works.

If user exposed functionality or configuration variables are added/changed:

If the code communicates with devices, web services, or third-party tools:

  • The manifest file has all fields filled out correctly.
    Updated and included derived files by running: python3 -m script.hassfest.
  • New or updated dependencies have been added to requirements_all.txt.
    Updated by running python3 -m script.gen_requirements_all.
  • For the updated dependencies - a link to the changelog, or at minimum a diff between library versions is added to the PR description.

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

@dgomes dgomes self-assigned this Dec 26, 2024
@dgomes dgomes marked this pull request as draft December 26, 2024 20:06
@dgomes dgomes mentioned this pull request Dec 26, 2024
19 tasks
@dgomes dgomes marked this pull request as ready for review December 26, 2024 21:02
Copy link
Contributor

@jb101010-2 jb101010-2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is my first HA review so take everything lightly. Most of the feedback I gave are from comments I had 😅

return self._ipma_data

@property
def extra_state_attributes(self) -> dict[str, Any] | None:
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Extra attributes are not great as they are persisted along the state.
Isn't it possible to store them as other sensors? Possibly disabled by default?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would agree with that, if it was not for existing integrations that follow this pattern (e.g. meteo-france). And for cards such as https://github.com/MrBartusek/MeteoalarmCard.

Truth be told the extra attributes are actually part of the state, it's just a desegregation of the state.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was afraid of that, and it kind ok make sense to have all the related data together.

I tried 😄

def extra_state_attributes(self) -> dict[str, Any] | None:
"""Return the state attributes."""
if (
self.entity_description.value_extractor is not None
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In my opinion, this feels a bit like a hack , I'd find it cleaner to have a function in entity description to extract the attributes.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It does indeed, but the issue is the API provides all the information (state and extra-attributes) in a single request and I must split that information into state and extra-attributes.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I understood that part, that's why I suggested the second version.
Add another function in IPMASensorEntityDescription to extract the attributes and use it instead of using something which might not be related

class IPMASensorEntityDescription(SensorEntityDescription):
    """Describes a IPMA sensor entity."""

    ....
    extra_attr_fn: Callable[[Any], dict[str, Any]] | None = None


state = hass.states.get("sensor.hometown_weather_alert")

assert state.state == "yellow"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If extra states are present they should be asserted for

async def test_ipma_warning_create_sensors(hass: HomeAssistant) -> None:
"""Test creation of warning sensors."""

with patch("pyipma.location.Location.get", return_value=MockLocation()):
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IMO it is also a good practice to test failing case.
Exceptions if any and in your case the fact that the data could not be present.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants