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

ipp: Make IPP protocol version configurable #115661

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: dev
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

LorbusChris
Copy link

@LorbusChris LorbusChris commented Apr 15, 2024

Proposed change

ipp: Make IPP protocol version configurable

Fixes: #93211

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:

Copy link

@home-assistant home-assistant bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @LorbusChris

It seems you haven't yet signed a CLA. Please do so here.

Once you do that we will be able to review and accept this pull request.

Thanks!

@home-assistant
Copy link

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.

@home-assistant
Copy link

Hey there @ctalkington, mind taking a look at this pull request as it has been labeled with an integration (ipp) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!

Code owner commands

Code owners of ipp 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 ipp 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.

@ctalkington
Copy link
Contributor

we could just pass version to most the calls, it'll merge over vs needing an option in pyipp

@LorbusChris
Copy link
Author

We can't pass it to ipp.printer() though IIRC. Are you proposing to switch to e.g. ipp.execute()?

@ctalkington
Copy link
Contributor

ctalkington commented Apr 18, 2024

We can't pass it to ipp.printer() though IIRC. Are you proposing to switch to e.g. ipp.execute()?

I think maybe allowing version to be optionally passed to ipp.printer() is the quick solution or maybe allow ipp_version as a passible property to IPP main class

@frenck frenck added smash Indicator this PR is close to finish for merging or closing and removed smash Indicator this PR is close to finish for merging or closing labels May 18, 2024
@@ -215,6 +215,7 @@ def _show_setup_form(self, errors: dict | None = None) -> ConfigFlowResult:
vol.Required(CONF_BASE_PATH, default="/ipp/print"): str,
vol.Required(CONF_SSL, default=False): bool,
vol.Required(CONF_VERIFY_SSL, default=False): bool,
vol.Required(CONF_PROTO_VERSION, default=(2, 0)): tuple[int, int],
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

would need to see how config flow UI handles tuples, not sure ive ever tried

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

indeed, could revert this back to bool (checkmark?) for the UI

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i think that is a sane option or maybe a dropdown backed by enum of the three common versions (1.1/2.0/2.1) but it would still involve some translations to tuple since itd need to be a string value if im not mistaken for UI purposes.

one of the specs regarding IPP Everywhere is that if you provide discovery info, you must support 2.0/2.1. we also dont use any features of 2.1 so 2.0 is what has been used since the start. so this option really only covers 1.1 from a HA manual standpoint.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

2024-05-18_09-47-46

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

maybe just specify in the checkbox text that legacy is 1.1 or just "Use IPP v1.1 for compatibility with older printers" vs "legacy"

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Opting for the easy way with just a bool checkbox for now. String updated accordingly, please take another look :)

@LorbusChris LorbusChris marked this pull request as draft May 18, 2024 14:36
@ctalkington
Copy link
Contributor

in the docs we may want to mention that older legacy printers are supported via manual config flow option but may lack certain sensors like ink levels.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

IPP version incompatibility
3 participants