feat: extending device status by device model

[humbertogontijo]

No description provided.

[humbertogontijo]

@Lash-L I invited you as a colaborator so I can add you as reviewer in future changes. Could you review this one?

[Lash-L]

I think this all looks good except my one typing comment.

Perhaps it makes sense to make Another dataclass called ModelStatus or something that the others inherit from, and it has all of the possibilities set to None. So you don't have to super repeat all of the non existent attributes for each one.

[humbertogontijo]

I think this all looks good except my one typing comment.

Perhaps it makes sense to make Another dataclass called ModelStatus or something that the others inherit from, and it has all of the possibilities set to None. So you don't have to super repeat all of the non existent attributes for each one.

What would this ModelStatus looks like?

[Lash-L]

What would this ModelStatus looks like?

I realized I was wrong.

Status already has these enums as None, so they don't need to be redeclared as None as they are inherited as None from Status.

[humbertogontijo]

What would this ModelStatus looks like?

I realized I was wrong.

Status already has these enums as None, so they don't need to be redeclared as None as they are inherited as None from Status.

The only way I can think of is creating a mixing for each model status

[Lash-L]

Sorry I think I wasn't very clear. I think how you have it is actually fine.

The base Status class already has 'fan_power' for instance, and it is set to None.

The specific S6PureStatus for example, just has to set the type of 'fan_power'

Then since the base Status class already has 'mop_mode' and it is None, S6PureStatus will also make it None.

I think the approach you have now is completely fine unless I am missing something

[humbertogontijo]

I wanted to make these fields required. But I think I'll just let it be optional for now