Add signature for Aqara H1 double switch lumi.switch.n2aeu1

[TheJulianJES]

Proposed change

Adds an alternative signature for the Aqara H1 double rocker switch (with neutral) lumi.switch.n2aeu1.

The following small changes are also done:

• existing "cluster id comments" are fixed and new ones are added
• raw cluster ids are replaced by cluster.cluster_id
• some commas to the end of lists in signature are added to be consistent with the other Opple/H1 switch quirks

Why use part of the signature from opple_switch.py instead of just adding new model info there?

The opple_switch.py file contains signatures strictly from the US lumi.switch.b2naus01 switch now.
The switch_h1_double.py file contains signatures for H1 double switches, but now also bases two quirks off the signatures in opple_switch.py and only changes the MODELS_INFO in its signature.

To avoid the confusion that was caused around this in the past, I've opted to do it this way to keep the US switch vs EU H1 quirks somewhat separate.
All H1 quirks are now either in switch_h1_double.py or switch_h1_single.py. In the past, they were split in a very non-intuitive way.

Additional information

• This is a continuation of Add more signatures for Aqara US switch lumi.switch.b2naus01 #2825
• It fixes a regression (no quirk matched) from: Support power/energy for more Aqara (H1) switches, add devices #2784
• Supersedes Fix Xiaomi H1 alternative signature #2806
• Also part of: Improve Aqara H1 switch quirks #2520

Checklist

• The changes are tested and work correctly
• pre-commit checks pass / the code has been formatted using Black
• Tests have been added to verify that the new code works

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (5291121) 87.37% compared to head (69625e5) 87.37%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##              dev    #2826   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   87.37%   87.37%           
=======================================
  Files         287      287           
  Lines        8847     8848    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits         7730     7731    +1     
  Misses       1117     1117           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[ehoogend]

@TheJulianJES It looks to me like there may be another signature missing here for the Aqara H1 Double Rocker Switch (with neutral) model lumi.switch.n2aeu1.

I have a ""lumi.switch.n2aeu1" device with the following signature:

{
  "node_descriptor": "NodeDescriptor(logical_type=<LogicalType.Router: 1>, complex_descriptor_available=0, user_descriptor_available=0, reserved=0, aps_flags=0, frequency_band=<FrequencyBand.Freq2400MHz: 8>, mac_capability_flags=<MACCapabilityFlags.FullFunctionDevice|MainsPowered|RxOnWhenIdle|AllocateAddress: 142>, manufacturer_code=4447, maximum_buffer_size=127, maximum_incoming_transfer_size=100, server_mask=11264, maximum_outgoing_transfer_size=100, descriptor_capability_field=<DescriptorCapability.NONE: 0>, *allocate_address=True, *is_alternate_pan_coordinator=False, *is_coordinator=False, *is_end_device=False, *is_full_function_device=True, *is_mains_powered=True, *is_receiver_on_when_idle=True, *is_router=True, *is_security_capable=False)",
  "endpoints": {
    "1": {
      "profile_id": "0x0104",
      "device_type": "0x0100",
      "input_clusters": [
        "0x0000",
        "0x0002",
        "0x0003",
        "0x0004",
        "0x0005",
        "0x0006",
        "0x0009",
        "0x0702",
        "0x0b04"
      ],
      "output_clusters": [
        "0x000a",
        "0x0019"
      ]
    },
    "2": {
      "profile_id": "0x0104",
      "device_type": "0x0100",
      "input_clusters": [
        "0x0000",
        "0x0003",
        "0x0004",
        "0x0005",
        "0x0006",
        "0x0012",
        "0xfcc0"
      ],
      "output_clusters": []
    },
    "242": {
      "profile_id": "0xa1e0",
      "device_type": "0x0061",
      "input_clusters": [],
      "output_clusters": [
        "0x0021"
      ]
    }
  },
  "manufacturer": "LUMI",
  "model": "lumi.switch.n2aeu1",
  "class": "zigpy.device.Device"
}

Which seems to match XiaomiOpple2ButtonSwitch3

Do you think this variant could be added as well? Or am I overlooking something?

[TheJulianJES]

I'll PR it. When you delete it from ZHA and re-pair it (maybe repeating that multiple times), does it also report a different signature sometimes? Wondering if XiaomiOpple2ButtonSwitch2 also matches these EU switches sometimes.

[ehoogend]

Actually yes, re-pairing gives different signatures as well unfortunately.

I just got the following signature:

{
  "node_descriptor": "NodeDescriptor(logical_type=<LogicalType.Router: 1>, complex_descriptor_available=0, user_descriptor_available=0, reserved=0, aps_flags=0, frequency_band=<FrequencyBand.Freq2400MHz: 8>, mac_capability_flags=<MACCapabilityFlags.FullFunctionDevice|MainsPowered|RxOnWhenIdle|AllocateAddress: 142>, manufacturer_code=4447, maximum_buffer_size=127, maximum_incoming_transfer_size=100, server_mask=11264, maximum_outgoing_transfer_size=100, descriptor_capability_field=<DescriptorCapability.NONE: 0>, *allocate_address=True, *is_alternate_pan_coordinator=False, *is_coordinator=False, *is_end_device=False, *is_full_function_device=True, *is_mains_powered=True, *is_receiver_on_when_idle=True, *is_router=True, *is_security_capable=False)",
  "endpoints": {
    "1": {
      "profile_id": "0x0104",
      "device_type": "0x0100",
      "input_clusters": [
        "0x0000",
        "0x0002",
        "0x0003",
        "0x0004",
        "0x0005",
        "0x0006",
        "0x0012",
        "0xfcc0"
      ],
      "output_clusters": [
        "0x000a",
        "0x0019"
      ]
    },
    "2": {
      "profile_id": "0x0104",
      "device_type": "0x0100",
      "input_clusters": [
        "0x0000",
        "0x0003",
        "0x0004",
        "0x0005",
        "0x0006",
        "0x0012",
        "0xfcc0"
      ],
      "output_clusters": []
    },
    "21": {
      "profile_id": "0x0104",
      "device_type": "0x0100",
      "input_clusters": [
        "0x000c"
      ],
      "output_clusters": []
    },
    "31": {
      "profile_id": "0x0104",
      "device_type": "0x0100",
      "input_clusters": [
        "0x000c"
      ],
      "output_clusters": []
    },
    "41": {
      "profile_id": "0x0104",
      "device_type": "0x0100",
      "input_clusters": [
        "0x0012"
      ],
      "output_clusters": []
    },
    "42": {
      "profile_id": "0x0104",
      "device_type": "0x0100",
      "input_clusters": [
        "0x0012"
      ],
      "output_clusters": []
    },
    "51": {
      "profile_id": "0x0104",
      "device_type": "0x0100",
      "input_clusters": [
        "0x0012"
      ],
      "output_clusters": []
    },
    "242": {
      "profile_id": "0xa1e0",
      "device_type": "0x0061",
      "input_clusters": [],
      "output_clusters": [
        "0x0021"
      ]
    }
  },
  "manufacturer": "LUMI",
  "model": "lumi.switch.n2aeu1",
  "class": "zigpy.device.Device"
}

Which is again different than before.

[TheJulianJES]

I think this one is already addressed in HA Core 2023.12.4.