Add strict type annotations to acer_projector

[mib1185]

Proposed change

Add strict type annotations.

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

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

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

[KapJI]

Please move constants to const.py and make them Final.

[mib1185]

Please move constants to const.py and make them Final.

Is it really needed for a single component integration?
If yes, sure I will change it 😉

[KapJI]

I think nicer structure is good. If someone will add another component, it will be easier to extend and maintain good structure.

[KapJI]

Btw, this integration doesn't have a code owner. Should we add someone?

It was created very long time ago: #1913

[mib1185]

Btw, this integration doesn't have a code owner. Should we add someone?

My intention is to add annotations to integrations, which has no codeowner and therefore might never be touched - but honestly would not like to become the codeowner of them all 🙈
@deisi maybe you want to have a look into this and take over the codeowner-ship?! 😉

[KapJI]

LGTM, thank you!

[deisi]

I can become the code owner. I wouldn't mind. I haven't done too much for HA in the last months, but I can definitely step it up and take more responsibility for my Components.

However I don't really know what this means. I guess it means I have to bring the code in line with all the new developments going on. Is there some documentation available on when and what i need to do something?

[KapJI]

Basically it means you'll be added as a reviewer to PRs which touch these components. Shouldn't be much traffic. There's no obligation to update them according to current standards.

Also you'll be pinged on issues related to these components.

@mib1185 can you update the manifest please? 🙂

[mib1185]

@mib1185 can you update the manifest please? slightly_smiling_face

If @deisi agree with that, than yeah sure 🙂

[KapJI]

@deisi are you ok with that? 🙂

[frenck]

LGTM ✅ Thanks, @mib1185 👍

../Frenck 🚂

[frenck]

@mib1185 Existing codeowner doesn't have to agree. If you want to help out as a codeowner, then, please add yourself. Any help anywhere is always welcomed 👍

[mib1185]

@frenck: until now, there is no codeowner defined, but @deisi was asked to takeover the owner ship, since he was the creator of this integration 😉

[frenck]

@mib1185 Right, but that isn't related to this PR.
So let's merge once this passes 👍

[mib1185]

ah ... no I get what you mean 🙂 👍

[deisi]

@deisi are you ok with that? slightly_smiling_face

I'm fine with that :)