Use dataclass for SsdpServiceInfo

[epenet]

Breaking change

Ssdp discovery now uses a dataclass instead of a dictionary object.
Access using __getitem__ will fail in version 2022.6.
Please use <cls>.<name> or <cls>.upnp.<name> instead.

Proposed change

Ssdp discovery now uses a dataclass instead of a dictionary object.
Access using __getitem__ will fail in version 2022.6.
Please use <cls>.<name> or <cls>.upnp.<name> instead.

Linked to this comment in the architecture discussion home-assistant/architecture#662 (comment)

This is a central PR to see what needs to be done:

1. Revert incorrect SsdpServiceInfo(TypedDict):

• Revert "Add type hints to SSDP (#59840)" #60270

2. Rename matching domains as the current value prevents use as property :

• Update ssdp matching_domain constant #60283

3. Introduce new SsdpServiceInfo(BaseServiceInfo) class:

• Introduce SsdpServiceInfo for ssdp discovery #60284

4. Update all tests in components to use the new SsdpServiceInfo(BaseServiceInfo) class:

• basic: Use SsdpServiceInfo for ssdp tests (part 1) #60320
• ssdp_location needs to be optional: Use SsdpServiceInfo for ssdp tests (part 2) #60322
• get needs to be implemented: Use SsdpServiceInfo for ssdp tests (part 3) #60334
• __iter__ needs to be implemented: Use SsdpServiceInfo for SOURCE_SSDP tests (part 4) #60339
• fix an issue with in checks SSDP attributes can be present but empty #60340

5. (this PR) Update ssdp to use the new SsdpServiceInfo(BaseServiceInfo) in discovery_flow.async_create_flow
6. Update all components to use the new SsdpServiceInfo in async_step_ssdp

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.
• 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.

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.

[epenet]

Should info[ATTR_UPNP_UDN] also be duplicated/moved to info[ATTR_UPNP][ATTR_UPNP_UDN]?

[bdraco]

Should info[ATTR_UPNP_UDN] also be duplicated/moved to info[ATTR_UPNP][ATTR_UPNP_UDN]?

Only if it can have arbitrary keys. I think the answer is yes, but it would be good to get a comment from StevenLooman or chishm to confirm

[epenet]

Should info[ATTR_UPNP_UDN] also be duplicated/moved to info[ATTR_UPNP][ATTR_UPNP_UDN]?

Only if it can have arbitrary keys. I think the answer is yes, but it would be good to get a comment from StevenLooman or chishm to confirm

cc @StevenLooman

[epenet]

In order to help with the review (I hope) I have added to this PR the corresponding changes to dlna_dmr component as an example.

If you feel that it makes the PR too big and it is better to move it back out into a separate PR I will be happy to oblige.

Edit: I have moved the sample dlna_dmr PR to #59957

[chishm]

I'll take a closer look when I've got more time, but the biggest concern I have at the moment is that, for discovery, components often match UPnP info (e.g. `deviceType`) in their manifest.json. That will possibly break if it's not in the top-level discovery info dict.

[epenet]

I'll take a closer look when I've got more time, but the biggest concern I have at the moment is that, for discovery, components often match UPnP info (e.g. deviceType) in their manifest.json. That will possibly break if it's not in the top-level discovery info dict.

@chishm this PR is not really a breaking change, as the data is duplicated for now. It is more a warning to other users to show that the real breaking change is coming in a future release.
I will prepare anyway the removal PR so that we can track and test it.

[epenet]

I have created the draft removal PR: #59960

[chishm]

@chishm this PR is not really a breaking change, as the data is duplicated for now. It is more a warning to other users to show that the real breaking change is coming in a future release. I will prepare anyway the removal PR so that we can track and test it.

Understood, but I thought it best to flag early that this will break how discovery info is matched to components. For example, arcam_fmj defines in it's manifest.json the following:

  "ssdp": [
    {
      "deviceType": "urn:schemas-upnp-org:device:MediaRenderer:1",
      "manufacturer": "ARCAM"
    }
  ]

In the ssdp component this is matched by IntegrationMatchers.async_matching_domains to the UPnP info in the combined_headers dict. The match is only done at the top level of the dict (no recursion), and is optimised for quickly checking SSDP notifications/searches against all domains.

This will need more consideration before altering the structure of the combined_headers dict.

[epenet]

Understood, but I thought it best to flag early that this will break how discovery info is matched to components.

Yes it is already covered in the tests, and implemented in draft #59960

[chishm]

Yes it is already covered in the tests, and implemented in draft #59960

Ah, thank you for pointing that out, I missed it on first read-through. I withdraw my concern and will give this a full review tomorrow 😄

[epenet]

I have dropped the DISCOVERY_MAPPING constant.

I have also dropped the __iter__ method to replace it with __contains__ method as I think it is a better way to solve the in/not in checks that some components still use. See #60339

[bdraco]

I'll take a look tomorrow after some sleep.

[bdraco]

I've run though this a few times now, and I think its good to go. I'm going to test sonos with it first though

[bdraco]

Sonos looks good.

Already tested discovery.