Allow core integrations to describe their conditions

[emontnemery]

Proposed change

Allow core integrations to describe their conditions

This is the same as #147075, which adds support for integrations to describe their triggers, but for conditions

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:
• Link to developer documentation pull request:
• Link to frontend 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:

• Documentation added/updated for www.home-assistant.io

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:

• I have reviewed two other open pull requests in this repository.

[home-assistant]

Hey there @home-assistant/core, mind taking a look at this pull request as it has been labeled with an integration (websocket_api) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!

Code owner commands

Code owners of websocket_api can trigger bot actions by commenting:

• @home-assistant close Closes the pull request.
• @home-assistant rename Awesome new title Renames the pull request.
• @home-assistant reopen Reopen the pull request.
• @home-assistant unassign websocket_api Removes the current integration label and assignees on the pull request, add the integration domain after the command.
• @home-assistant add-label needs-more-information Add a label (needs-more-information, problem in dependency, problem in custom component) to the pull request.
• @home-assistant remove-label needs-more-information Remove a label (needs-more-information, problem in dependency, problem in custom component) on the pull request.

[abmantis]

You missed committing the hassfest.conditions module?

[abmantis]

CI is failing:

FAILED tests/test_loader.py::test_async_get_component_preloads_config_and_config_flow - AssertionError: assert 15 == 14
 +  where 15 = len(['backup', 'config', 'config_flow', 'diagnostics', 'energy', 'group', ...])
 +  and   14 = len(['backup', 'config', 'config_flow', 'diagnostics', 'energy', 'group', ...])
 +    where ['backup', 'config', 'config_flow', 'diagnostics', 'energy', 'group', ...] = loader.BASE_PRELOAD_PLATFORMS

[bdraco]

If these don't ever yield to the loop its faster to await in a loop so the tasks don't have to be scheduled

[emontnemery]

In the PR, listeners are added by WS command "condition_platforms/subscribe", which calls condition.async_get_all_descriptions.

condition.async_get_all_descriptions will yield in case of a cache miss in order to do file I/O, otherwise not.
Once startup is complete and platforms with conditions are all loaded, this will never yield.

However, why doesn't asyncio.gather eagerly run tasks? Is there no such option?

[bdraco]

The tasks do still start eagerly with asyncio.gather, but there's overhead from scheduling and wrapping each one into a Task. If only the first call is expected to yield and the rest will run synchronously afterward, then awaiting them in sequence is likely to perform better. Once that initial I/O completes, the remaining calls should just run straight through without suspension, so there's little benefit to parallelizing them.

[bdraco]

Also since async_get_all_descriptions doesn't have a lock (thats fine as more efficient most of the time), you might have a thundering heard trying to build the cache if you end up in the executor because the cache is stale. I haven't fully analyzed the flow though.

[emontnemery]

Changed to not gather in a39c774