Add a google calendar diagnostics platform

[allenporter]

Proposed change

Add a google calendar diagnostics platform which includes redacted events.

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:
• This PR is related to issue: Google Calendar no longer changing state at start of events #100575
• 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 Black (black --fast 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.

[frenck]

Hi there @allenporter 👋

The CI is failing, can you take a look? 👍

../Frenck

[home-assistant]

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.

[allenporter]

Oh interesting, I considered these codecov failures advisory/up to judgement. These are corner cases for internal details about the storage format of the integration that didn't seem worth testing since you have to patch them to get into these weird states. Happy to add that coverage though.

[allenporter]

I simplified the code to just handle these cases inline rather than create code branches. Kind of a codecov hack, but the code is a bit simpler in the end.

[frenck]

@allenporter Don't forget to mark it ready for review when it is done 😉

[allenporter]

Thank you -- didn't want to spam before it actually passed, but then of course forgot to re-check.

[joostlek]

Can we make this a fixture?

[frenck]

Would be nice, but options :)

Maybe for a future PR

[allenporter]

Post merge, following up on the fixture comment since i'm happy to explore it in a future PR.

This is used with mock_events_list_items which is a fixture. That is used at different points in the test to change the next response when events are listed, so the API is now something like:

    mock_events_list_items([TEST_EVENT])

or if testing a special case, something like this:

    mock_events_list_items(
        [
            {
                **TEST_EVENT,
                "id": "event-id-1",
                "iCalUID": "event-id-1@google.com",
                "summary": "All Day Event",
                "start": {"date": "2022-10-08"},
                "end": {"date": "2022-10-09"},
            },
        ]
    )

or for tests that are not using freezer:

    one_hour_from_now = dt_util.now() + datetime.timedelta(minutes=30)
    end_event = one_hour_from_now + datetime.timedelta(minutes=60)
    event = {
        **TEST_EVENT,
        "start": {"dateTime": one_hour_from_now.isoformat()},
        "end": {"dateTime": end_event.isoformat()},
    }
    mock_events_list_items([event])

So its definitely used as an input to a fixture, but its just a variable to help with creating new events for composing them.

So at best we could make another fixture that is a simpler fixture that already takes in the TEST_EVENT as a default and the caller passes in the deltas for the test, but I didn't think having multiple fixtures was worthwhile, and so that is why its composition via TEST_EVENT

If you have other ideas happy to explore them, but also this isn't a pain right now.

Thanks!

[frenck]

Thanks, @allenporter 👍

../Frenck