Add support for simultaneous runs of Script helper - Part 2

[pnbruckner]

Proposed change

This is a follow-on to #31937.

While working to use those changes in the script integration a few bugs were discovered. Also it became clear that a slight change of direction was needed regarding how to configure/handle long running scripts. Lastly a new queue mode was added which can be very helpful in certain scenarios (especially for automation action sequences.)

The changes were broken up into several, smaller commits to help make the review process easier.

New Script helper option

Replaces if_running.

script_mode

• Controls what happens if Script run (i.e., async_run called) while previous run has not yet completed.
• Values:
  • error Raise an exception
  • ignore Return without doing anything (previous run continues as-is)
  • legacy Implements previous behavior, which is to return when done, or when suspended by delay or wait_template, whichever comes first. This is the default
  • parallel Start run in new task
  • queue Start new run when previous runs have completed
  • restart Stop previous run before starting new run

New script.turn_on service parameter

Replaces run_mode.

Background/blocking behavior is now controlled by the script.turn_on service. The default (which also applies when calling a script "directly" -- script.abc -- or via the script.toggle service) is to be fully blocking. To run a script in the "background" a new blocking parameter to the script.turn_on service has been defined:

- service: script.turn_on
  entity_id: script.abc
  data:
    blocking: false
    variables: ...

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.
• Untested files have been added to .coveragerc.

The integration reached or maintains the following Integration Quality Scale:

• No score or internal
• 🥈 Silver
• 🥇 Gold
• 🏆 Platinum

[pnbruckner]

I've made the other changes already requested and tested them. I'll go ahead and make another commit so they can be looked over while we decide what to do about stopping/restarting invoked scripts.

[pnbruckner]

FYI, I did a rebase that I need to force push to resolve the conflicts from your PR.

[balloob]

This looks good ! We can merge this after conflicts resolved. Conflicts caused by me moving some constants to config_validation.py.

Let's do the unshielding of the service call in core.py in a future PR.

[pnbruckner]

I did some ad hoc testing and found a bug in the turn off sequence initiated by a cancellation. (Turning off was originally done via a service so I had overlooked this one.)

I want to commit that fix, then do a lot more testing (both with additional formal tests as well as ad hoc) before we merge this change. Give me at least a few more days.

Regarding removing the shield from services.async_call, I suppose it makes sense to do that separately since it has a potential for a large impact. I've been testing with that change and found at least a couple tests from other components that seem to be affected by the small timing change (i.e., probably one less await inside the call.) see recent comment in conversation about changes to homeassistant/core.py above.

[pnbruckner]

Force push required due to rebase. See last commit for changes since last review.

[pnbruckner]

I'd still like to do more testing, possibly adding more formal tests, before this PR is merged.

[pnbruckner]

Assuming the tests pass (they did locally), and you don't find any other issues, then I think we can put this one to bed and I'll start working on the ServiceRegistry.async_call changes we discussed.

[balloob]

Booooooooooom 🎉