Bump hatasmota to 0.0.27

[emontnemery]

Proposed change

Bump hatasmota from 0.0.26 to 0.0.27
This fixes buttons and switches and adds some additional status sensors.

Changes:

• 0.0.27 (https://github.com/emontnemery/hatasmota/releases/tag/0.0.27)
  • Accept Tasmota 9.0.0.3 discovery messages #32 @emontnemery
  • Use Status 10 to poll sensors #30 @effelle
  • Updated status sensors #29 @effelle
  • Adjust buttons and switches to Tasmota 9.0.0.3 #28 @emontnemery

emontnemery/hatasmota@0.0.26...0.0.27

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

Example entry for configuration.yaml:

# Example configuration.yaml

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

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

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

[gregoryduckworth]

Played around with this as I was having issues with switches and works wonderfully! Thanks @emontnemery.

[ctalkington]

is there a reason this changed from DEVICE_CLASS_TIMESTAMP? there may be some differences in frontend formatting without such.

[emontnemery]

Yes, it's because the uptime is not a timestamp, it measures elapsed time.

[effelle]

Uptime has its own format: [n days]T[hh:mm:ss].

{"Uptime":"3T13:38:27"}

To have it working as DEVICE_CLASS_TIMESTAMP a conversion is needed by our side and frankly doesn't worth the effort since is already showing a clear information.

[ctalkington]

while it may seem not worth it, this is going to create a lot of state changes which is why using timestamp is preferrred as you would only set the last boot time

[emontnemery]

Hmm, that's a good point. Storing the timestamp of last restart would be enough, but it's maybe not so user friendly for display?

Edit: Maybe a solution could be to truncate the uptime to full hours to prevent spamming a lot of state changes.

[MartinHjelmare]

Our standard is to use device class timestamp for these cases. Please convert the time to an absolute time if needed.

[emontnemery]

Thanks Martin, we'll get that sorted in next hatasmota version.

[emontnemery]

Corrected in #43013