Revert "Change naming of Shelly entities to correspond with HA guidelines"

[thecode]

Proposed change

Reverts #97533

Edited to explain better:

The purpose of #97533 was to align Shelly with HA guidelines and prepare for implementing entity translations. However after this PR was accepted, during testing and starting to work on entity translations we realized that:

• This PR will change entity names (which is not considered a breaking change but is not user friendly).
• We still have hard-coded text in the entity name (Channel) which there is no support for translating it right now.
• We will probably need to introduce another change in the entity names (such as dropping the hard-coded Channel text) when we try to provide entity translations, which will not go in this release so the next release will also change the entity names.
• We still don't have a clean solution for handling multiple channels to be user friendly, this may need an architectural discussion to solve.

With the above considerations we think it would be better to delay this change until we have answers to the points above or even if we don't we try to implement all the changes in a single release so the impact on users will be minimal.

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)
• Deprecation (breaking change to happen in the future)
• 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
• I have followed the perfect PR recommendations
• 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.

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

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

[home-assistant]

Hey there @balloob, @bieniu, @chemelli74, @bdraco, mind taking a look at this pull request as it has been labeled with an integration (shelly) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!

Code owner commands

Code owners of shelly can trigger bot actions by commenting:

• @home-assistant close Closes the pull request.
• @home-assistant rename Awesome new title Renames the pull request.
• @home-assistant reopen Reopen the pull request.
• @home-assistant unassign shelly Removes the current integration label and assignees on the pull request, add the integration domain after the command.

[frenck]

I don't agree on this change. We should follow the guidelines; like every other integration.

There is no reasoning here what is broken, nor is the problem presented. At this point, this is a revert in the dark.

../Frenck

[home-assistant]

Please take a look at the requested changes, and use the Ready for review button when you are done, thanks 👍

Learn more about our pull request process.

[thecode]

I don't agree on this change. We should follow the guidelines; like every other integration.

There is no reasoning here what is broken, nor is the problem presented. At this point, this is a revert in the dark.

../Frenck

The problem is that currently it is broken and to fix it we will have to introduce a breaking change in the future, this is not about guidelines, we prepared this to be ready for entity translations and realized it is not helping us making entity translations as we have hardcoded parts in the entity names. I was starting to work on architecture discussion to help us solve this issue, but I see no point doing it if we don't get back to something that is working and starting clean from there.

Feel free to close it if you disagree, no point putting it on requested changes.

[frenck]

Feel free to close it if you disagree, no point putting it on requested changes.

The problem isn't explained. Without the proper motivation there is nothing to approve, nor is there anything to request changes on.

The issue isn't explained.

../Frenck

[frenck]

I'm not sure why this is closed, and fail to understand it? There isn't a problem? Or there is a problem?

Is the PR now closed because you don't want to elaborate on the issue? Or? 😕

../Frenck

[frenck]

Thanks for the updated text and discussions @thecode!