Config flow for ONVIF

[hunterjm]

Breaking change

The extra_arguments and rtsp_transport configuration from yaml is now a part of the Options flow for the integration, and is not automatically imported to the config flow with the rest of the defined ONVIF platforms.

Proposed change

Migrated the ONVIF integration to config flow and added the ability to automatically discover ONVIF devices on the network as a part of the user step. Also adds validation along the way to ensure successful configuration.

This is the first PR in a larger refactor that will move much of the API logic out of the camera platform and into an ONVIF device as well as add support for creating sensor entities based on ONVIF notifications.

I still need to add tests for the config flow and update the documentation, but wanted to get eyes on this to make sure I was heading in the right direction.

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)
• Breaking change (fix/feature causing existing functionality to break)
• Code quality improvements to existing code or addition of tests

Example entry for configuration.yaml:

# Example configuration.yaml

Additional information

• This PR fixes or closes issue: fixes #
• This PR is related to issue:
• Link to documentation pull request: Update ONVIF for Config Flow home-assistant.io#13227

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
• 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.
• Untested files have been added to .coveragerc.

The integration reached or maintains the following Integration Quality Scale:

• No score or internal
• 🥈 Silver
• 🥇 Gold
• 🏆 Platinum

[Kane610]

When you get to sensors and events; I have written a small RTSP client for the Onvif metadata stream to use with Axis devices, which could be usable here

[hunterjm]

All PR comments resolved & ready for another review as I start work on tests.

[hunterjm]

Just rebased, to also encompass #34420 in this PR. I kind of squashed a few commits in the process because going through each patch was a PITA.

[hunterjm]

Tests are mostly done. There are a couple of edge cases I haven't covered yet. I want to refactor the entire component to make testing easier as well as add support for ONVIF events, so the test code isn't as clean as I would like it. I wanted to only cover the config flow this go around.

Edge case tests and doc updates incoming (tomorrow probably)

[hunterjm]

This is g2g for another look.

[balloob]

How much of this data is profile specific and how much data can be shared between all entities of 1 camera?

[hunterjm]

The very next PR is going to refactor almost all of this logic out of the Camera entity and into a Device class, which will make it easier to implement events/sensors as well. I wanted to limit the scope of this PR though.

[balloob]

Suggested change

	self.device_id = interface.Info.HwAddress
	self.device_id = interface.Info.HwAddress
	break

[hunterjm]

I would have normally added a break here as well, but the existing unique ID in the camera entity is set without the break as well, and I didn’t want to run into any issues, however unlikely.

[MartinHjelmare]

Does the camera initialization need to happen sequentially? Could we use asyncio.gather to make it concurrent?

[MartinHjelmare]

We don't want side effects like logging in init method.

[MartinHjelmare]

This doesn't sound correct. This is an entity not a component.

[MartinHjelmare]

We don't need to store the entity in hass.data anymore.

[MartinHjelmare]

Please import from tests.async_mock instead.