Use cached_property instead of stacked property + cache

[cdce8p]

Proposed change

Originally added in #67475
https://docs.python.org/3/library/functools.html#functools.cached_property

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 #
• 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 @chishm, mind taking a look at this pull request as it has been labeled with an integration (dlna_dms) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!
_{^{(message by CodeOwnersMention)}}

[Kane610]

Looks good to me

[chishm]

Sorry I didn't get to this before merge. I'd written it using the property + cache decorators for memory efficiency, as described on the note to functools.cached_property:

Note, this decorator interferes with the operation of PEP 412 key-sharing dictionaries. This means that instance dictionaries can take more space than usual.

Is there any reason to prefer functools.cached_property instead (for future reference)?

[cdce8p]

Is there any reason to prefer functools.cached_property instead (for future reference)?

Where @cached_property is a bit less memory efficient, @property + @cache is slower. IMO it doesn't really matter to optimize for that at our scale. More important to use what is easily understood and best supported by linters / code completion.

If you really want to optimize it, I would suggest to precompute _sort_criteria and store the result inside a variable. That should avoid all negative side effects. But as I said before, it probably doesn't matter and isn't worth the effort.

Funny enough, I only saw it because the type: ignore was missing an error code. 😅

[chishm]

Where @cached_property is a bit less memory efficient, @property + @cache is slower. IMO it doesn't really matter to optimize for that at our scale. More important to use what is easily understood and best supported by linters / code completion.

That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I'll use @cached_property in future unless there's a very good reason not to.