Add ability to pass integration domain to report_usage

[epenet]

Proposed change

Sometimes it's hard to know if the code is going to trace back to the integration.
As I was working on #130567, I realised that it always reports as "core" even though we know the offending integration.

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 Ruff (ruff format 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.

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

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

[bdraco]

That group test is flakey. I restarted the failed CI runners so we can get a clean coverage report

[epenet]

That group test is flakey. I restarted the failed CI runners so we can get a clean coverage report

Coverage OK now...

codecov/patch — 100.00% of diff hit (target 80.69%)
codecov/patch/required — Coverage not affected when comparing 98ec039...f8e5d51
codecov/project — 80.70% (+0.00%) compared to 98ec039
codecov/project/required — 97.99% (+0.03%) compared to 98ec039

[epenet]

Thanks @bdraco 👍