Use matrix for db recorder tests

[epenet]

Proposed change

Should resolve

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
• 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.

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

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

[frenck]

Mark mariadb as success not skip on partial builds

I do not agree with the stance in this PR. It is skipped, did not actually run. Making it look like it ran gives the wrong expectation / sends the wrong message.

I don't like skipped jobs either (I wish we could just not show them), but just marking them as passed is not right either.

[epenet]

I do not agree with the stance in this PR. It is skipped, did not actually run. Making it look like it ran gives the wrong expectation / sends the wrong message.

I don't like skipped jobs either (I wish we could just not show them), but just marking them as passed is not right either.

I think I have found a solution, using a matrix.

• If the matrix is empty => the jobs are fully ignored (see (mock) Use matrix for db recorder tests #87641)
• If the matrix is populated => the jobs are correctly run

[epenet]

As s bonus, this new flavour would enable the ability to test different versions of postgre and/or mariadb.

[bdraco]

It would be nice to get visibility on which lines are covered with MariaDB/Postgresql since we have PRs like this that look like they have no coverage for those paths but the test will cover some of those lines
#87583
#87321

[epenet]

I'll take a look tomorrow, but the coverage should get uploaded

[2023-02-08T17:06:36.816Z] ['info'] => Found 12 possible coverage files:
  coverage-3.10-1/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-10/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-2/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-3/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-4/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-5/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-6/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-7/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-8/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-9/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-mariadb/coverage.xml
  coverage-3.10-postgresql/coverage.xml

[epenet]

It would be nice to get visibility on which lines are covered with MariaDB/Postgresql since we have PRs like this that look like they have no coverage for those paths but the test will cover some of those lines #87583 #87321

The reason I removed from needs is so that it doesn't block coverage upload on partial runs.
For full runs the recorder test will normally finish before the full suite so they'll be included anyway.

[bdraco]

Unrelated to this PR but we should probably be testing with 10.6.10 since that is what ships with the addon

[epenet]

👍
We can do that in a follow-up PR

[bdraco]

Updated solution LGTM 👍

[epenet]

@frenck any last comments before I merge?

[frenck]

@epenet Sorry, no, I don't think so :) My main issue with the proposition seems to be addressed, so happy 👍