Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Warn when lights violate color mode rules #110336

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Feb 12, 2024
Merged

Conversation

emontnemery
Copy link
Contributor

@emontnemery emontnemery commented Feb 12, 2024

Proposed change

Warn when lights violate color mode rules and ask users to raise issues

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

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:

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:

@home-assistant
Copy link

Hey there @home-assistant/core, mind taking a look at this pull request as it has been labeled with an integration (light) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!

Code owner commands

Code owners of light 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 light 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.

@emontnemery emontnemery marked this pull request as draft February 12, 2024 09:36
if not self.platform:
return True
# philips_js and zha have known issues, we don't need users to open issues
return self.platform.platform_name not in {"philips_js", "zha"}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This return condition is not validated in the tests. Consider adding platform_name to one of the parametrized tests?

Are we better off having these two integrations explicitly opt out of the issue, rather than coding here? This way when the issue is fixed in the integration no changes are required to this base class?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This return condition is not validated in the tests. Consider adding platform_name to one of the parametrized tests

Hmm, you're right 👍 I'll update the tests.

Are we better off having these two integrations explicitly opt out of the issue, rather than coding here

We usually use this pattern to temporarily opt-out of validation, but I guess the integrations could opt out too.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Test update looks good.

Since this is the established pattern that is fine with me, as consistency is important. The risk is if this does not get removed after zha fixes the issue, it could mask the issue being in zha (e.g. it wasn't fixed completely). I'm fine with it as is.

@emontnemery emontnemery merged commit 1764c03 into dev Feb 12, 2024
53 checks passed
@emontnemery emontnemery deleted the light_warn_color_mode branch February 12, 2024 16:43
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 13, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants