Skip to content

Add ability to load fixtures as SsdpServiceInfo in tests #144094

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 12 commits into from

Conversation

epenet
Copy link
Contributor

@epenet epenet commented May 2, 2025

Proposed change

Since we now have an easy way to copy a UPNP dump from the new frontend SSDP browser (System -> Network), having the ability to dump the json into a fixture and load it directly into a SsdpServiceInfo object will encourage developpers to use "real-life" objects instead of partial or minimalist objects.

image

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:
  • Link to developer documentation pull request:
  • Link to frontend 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
  • I have followed the perfect PR recommendations
  • The code has been formatted using Ruff (ruff format homeassistant tests)
  • Tests have been added to verify that the new code works.

If user exposed functionality or configuration variables are added/changed:

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.

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

@home-assistant
Copy link

home-assistant bot commented May 2, 2025

Hey there @chemelli74, mind taking a look at this pull request as it has been labeled with an integration (samsungtv) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!

Code owner commands

Code owners of samsungtv can trigger bot actions by commenting:

  • @home-assistant close Closes the pull request.
  • @home-assistant rename Awesome new title Renames the pull request.
  • @home-assistant reopen Reopen the pull request.
  • @home-assistant unassign samsungtv Removes the current integration label and assignees on the pull request, add the integration domain after the command.
  • @home-assistant add-label needs-more-information Add a label (needs-more-information, problem in dependency, problem in custom component) to the pull request.
  • @home-assistant remove-label needs-more-information Remove a label (needs-more-information, problem in dependency, problem in custom component) on the pull request.

@epenet epenet marked this pull request as ready for review May 2, 2025 10:04
@epenet epenet requested a review from chemelli74 as a code owner May 2, 2025 10:04
@epenet epenet requested a review from StevenLooman as a code owner May 2, 2025 11:49
@epenet epenet requested a review from elupus as a code owner May 2, 2025 12:12
@epenet epenet changed the title Add ability to parse SsdpServiceInfo fixtures in tests Add ability to load fixtures as SsdpServiceInfo in tests May 2, 2025
Comment on lines +595 to +598
def load_ssdp_fixture(filename: str, integration: str | None = None) -> SsdpServiceInfo:
"""Load a SsdpServiceInfo object from a fixture."""
kwargs = load_json_object_fixture(filename, integration)
return SsdpServiceInfo(**kwargs)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be loading the files in the executor?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can easily add... is that something we wish to encourage on all new fixture loads or just ssdp?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In general, it should be on all new fixtures since we're loading them in the event loop

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn't this something we should fix more globally? As in, should we make the load async and just do it in the helper function?

I'm also interested how we can make the loading of fixtures more efficient because I'm sure my integrations do IO at every test while we could make that faster by only loading them once, but i never looked into it as i would like to know more on how the correct way is

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need to distinguish between module constants versus dynamically loaded fixtures? 🤔

I think it makes sense to load dynamic fixtures via the executor... but I guess module constants would need to be migrated (maybe to pytest fixtures? Or loaded dynamically?)

@epenet epenet closed this May 6, 2025
@epenet
Copy link
Contributor Author

epenet commented May 6, 2025

I'm closing, because I think load_fixture needs investigating before we look at a generic method for SSDP

@epenet epenet deleted the epenet-20250502-1113 branch May 6, 2025 12:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants