Deconz websocket fixture

[Kane610]

Breaking change

Proposed change

The Goal here was to become less dependent of integration specific mechanisms to verify states in the tests. Most is really about cosmetics and the core of tests have usually not been altered.

• Add a fixture for websocket events
• Replace deepcopy of DECONZ_WEB_REQUEST with using a patch.dict
• Minor changes in how asserts are formulated
• Minor changes to improve code coverage

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

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

• I have reviewed two other open pull requests in this repository.

[MartinHjelmare]

Maybe split the PR into one platform per PR?

[Kane610]

My initial thought since its mostly the same work in all files there was no need to split it. But if you want to I can

[MartinHjelmare]

It's a mix of changes and many lines. It's easier to set aside a smaller amount of time for each review. Bigger PRs will naturally get pushed back to end of the queue.

[Kane610]

I will split it during the afternoon

[Kane610]

I've split this into multiple PRs.