Remove wrong update per core design on ZHA

[pvizeli]

Proposed change

https://developers.home-assistant.io/docs/core/entity/#async_added_to_hass

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:

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

[probot-home-assistant]

Hey there @dmulcahey, @Adminiuga, mind taking a look at this pull request as its been labeled with an integration (zha) you are listed as a codeowner for? Thanks!
_{^{(message by CodeOwnersMention)}}

[Adminiuga]

@dmulcahey is there a reason why we even were doing this? I suspect there is, but I concur that async_update() in added_to_hass() is wrong and whatever the reason was we should handle it in other way. Was it done only for the newly joined devices/entities?

[Adminiuga]

LGTM

[dmulcahey]

I have no idea why that one is there off hand... I’ll go through the history to see where it came from

[dmulcahey]

Looks like I did that with the groups... wasn't intentional at all. 🤷‍♂️

[Adminiuga]

only one way to find out :)