Change check for existence of options flow

[marcelveldt]

Proposed change

The check if a config entry flow supports options was a bit strange, only checking if the method was overridden.
This doesn't catch the situation where an integration want to conditionally provide support for the Options flow, depending on the configured device, bridge, api version etc.

The check that was there only checked if the method was overridden.
I've changed it to actually looking if the method throws an UnknownHandler exception at runtime.

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

Additional information

• This PR fixes or closes issue: fixes Philips Hue Integration, "configure" button fails to display dialogue #61156
• 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.
• 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.

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.

[probot-home-assistant]

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

[marcelveldt]

test seems to fail on something unrelated

[emontnemery]

@marcelveldt It's not unrelated; tests/components/config/test_config_entries.py::test_get_entries fails with this PR and passes without it.

[marcelveldt]

tests/components/config/test_config_entries.py::test_get_entries

Ah thanks, the output of the tests was very confusing. I'll dig into it

[marcelveldt]

@emontnemery fixed. Turns out there was actually an error in the original test that got hidden by the previous implementation

[elupus]

I thought that function actually instanciate the option flow object too. That could theoretically have side effects?

[marcelveldt]

I thought that function actually instanciate the option flow object too. That could theoretically have side effects?

Yes by calling the function it will instantiate the OptionsFlow, I did not see any side effects while testing.

It looked kind of strange to me that this was comparing the functions instead of the result but maybe there is some underlying reason I'm overlooking.

[elupus]

Any implementation of option flow can have side effects in it's init function. For example registering a WebView or what not.

I don't know if any exist, but unless overloading of init is blocked, i think this is a bad idea. I always found it a bit strange that it returns an instance. Should have returned a constructor instead.

If you need to conditionally support option flow, you can just abort your flow directly.

[marcelveldt]

If you need to conditionally support option flow, you can just abort your flow directly.

It was like that but users got an empty dialog and were confused. So changed it to raising UnknownHandler but that got me into this.

I get your point about any side effects in the init of the OptionsFlow.

Another approach is to set some instance variable that the options flow is not supported and check that too.
Doesn't solve the real issue though. I agree with you that this function should return a constructor without instantiating it.

[marcelveldt]

@MartinHjelmare @elupus
I've adjusted it a bit, including an example how to use it in the Hue integration.
This doesn't change the strange method comparison to determine if OptionsFlow is supported but it allows for integrations to override the async_supports_options_flow classmethod

[MartinHjelmare]

I think it's ok, but I'd like Paulus' opinion too.

[balloob]

Yeah this makes a lot more sense 👍

[elupus]

Looks much better