Fix for Synology DSM shared images

[lodesmets]

Breaking change

Proposed change

Synology photos uses a different api if an image is your own, or someone else's. This would fix the issue

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 Synology photos not working in Media sources #103653
• 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:

• 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.
• Untested files have been added to .coveragerc.

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

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

[home-assistant]

Hey there @hacf-fr, @Quentame, @mib1185, mind taking a look at this pull request as it has been labeled with an integration (synology_dsm) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!

Code owner commands

Code owners of synology_dsm 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 synology_dsm 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.

[lodesmets]

Hey reviewer,
I have a question. This fix I'm not 100% certain if it is the correct way to fix it, please give me some input.
As you can see, if I get an exception (because the image isn't found), i try again with the 'shared' flag True.

This way fixes it without breaking change.

I could also fix it in another way: in the url also add the flag shared (1 or 0). This way it would be less "hacky". But this would be a breaking change (for users who have hardcoded the url in automations/cards/....)

Can someone give me input on the best way? Or is this OK?

[mib1185]

Hi @lodesmets
i was also thinking that way to add the "is_shared" flag to the identifier string to make the api call explizit (and not implizit by try-err-retry-error-again). I'm not sure, if this is considered as breaking change, since the media source URL is not really exposed to the user 🤔 My feeling is it is not a breaking change.

[lodesmets]

Hi @lodesmets i was also thinking that way to add the "is_shared" flag to the identifier string to make the api call explizit (and not implizit by try-err-retry-error-again). I'm not sure, if this is considered as breaking change, since the media source URL is not really exposed to the user 🤔 My feeling is it is not a breaking change.

Hey,
So should I change it, so it puts the shared flagg in the url? Or wait for a second opinion?

[mib1185]

I've discussed it internally - as long as the current identifier (urls) still work, it is not a breaking change. So i would suggest to add a suffix only for shared images (eq. _shared) to the end of the identifier (which is ultimately the filename) and check the filename if it has _shared flak at the end