Fix pin reuse error with pin expanders

[jesserockz]

What does this implement/fix?

If the same pin number was used but from two different i/o expanders in the same platform, the error was given. This changes to use the id of the expander as part of the key

Types of changes

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Other

Related issue or feature (if applicable): fixes

Pull request in esphome-docs with documentation (if applicable): esphome/esphome-docs#

Test Environment

• ESP32
• ESP32 IDF
• ESP8266
• RP2040
• BK72xx
• RTL87xx

Example entry for config.yaml:

# Example config.yaml

Checklist:

• The code change is tested and works locally.
• Tests have been added to verify that the new code works (under tests/ folder).

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

• Documentation added/updated in esphome-docs.

[clydebarrow]

Since the ID will be unique for each instance of a component, shouldn't it be sufficient to just use the changes around line 68 to use the correct value for the first part of the key, rather than adding an extra dimension to the key?

That section of code (lines 68 and 69) did bother me at the time since it appeared to work, but I was not 100% clear on why.

[clydebarrow]

Or is it possible that a single component can have multiple registered pin schemas? In which case the extra key dimension is needed.

[jesserockz]

Since the ID will be unique for each instance of a component, shouldn't it be sufficient to just use the changes around line 68 to use the correct value for the first part of the key, rather than adding an extra dimension to the key?

That section of code (lines 68 and 69) did bother me at the time since it appeared to work, but I was not 100% clear on why.

I tried that, but the key is pulled out later on line 107 to get the final_validation function, so the non-id key is needed

[clydebarrow]

Ah ok. Looks Good Enough to me. I'm sure it will get revisited over time :-)

[esphome]

Please take a look at the requested changes, and use the Ready for review button when you are done, thanks 👍

Learn more about our pull request process.

[justlikeef]

Confirmed this fixed the issue for me in dev