Add reauth flow to ring integration

[sdb9696]

Proposed change

Add reauthorisation flow to the ring integration. Currently token expiry requires users to delete and re-create the ring integration which is undesirable.

In order for this to work the ring_doorbell library that this integration uses has some new error types that need to be caught and handled by the integration. Hence it depended on PR Bump ring_doorbell to 0.8.0 and handle new exceptions which has now been merged.

N.B. I based these changes heavily on PR #103351 so many thanks to @dknowles2 and the reviewers on that PR.

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:

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.

[allenporter]

Overall looks great! I have some suggestions about readability improvements and think its best to do the dependency bump first in a separate PR fixing the compatibility issues, then doing reauth in a follow up. (I'll happily review quickly if you reference the bump pr)

[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.

[sdb9696]

Overall looks great! I have some suggestions about readability improvements and think its best to do the dependency bump first in a separate PR fixing the compatibility issues, then doing reauth in a follow up. (I'll happily review quickly if you reference the bump pr)

Thanks @allenporter, I have implemented all of your suggestions except for the dependency bump separation due to the reasons given on the other comment and in the PR description. Hopefully it makes sense and I cannot see another way on this occasion without making things very complicated. This is a one off issue as going forwards consumers of ring_doorbell will only catch the library specific exceptions rather than catching lower level implementation exceptions.

qq, should I Resolve Conversation myself when I've implemented the suggestion or wait for you to do it?

Many thanks!

[allenporter]

qq, should I Resolve Conversation myself when I've implemented the suggestion or wait for you to do it?

My personal approach is:

• Resolve comments I addressed that I believe were straight forward or non-controversial (e.g. i'm pretty confident I understood and addressed what they were asking me)
• Leave open comments where either there was room for interpretation on what they were looking for and I'm not quite sure if i addressed it, or had additional questions, or I disagreed with the reviewer and have a different suggestion/stance.

[sdb9696]

Many thanks @allenporter for all your help with this