Fix onvif cameras that cannot parse relative time

[bdraco]

Proposed change

The spec requires that the camera can parse relative or absolute timestamps However there are many cameras that cannot parse time correctly.

Much of the event code has been offloaded to the library as support to determine if the camera has broken time and switch to absolute timestamps is now built into the library

We want to try relative times first as they are less prone to issues where ha time and camera time are not in sync

Additionally the webhook url has been shortened because the long url causes some camera to crash

changelog: openvideolibs/python-onvif-zeep-async@v2.1.1...v3.1.7

This is working great and its all bug fixes but there is a lot of refactoring here to make this work so I tested each of the 51 test cameras with this change-set.

We are making progress for sure as ONVIF jumped on analytics to 8,139 (4.2%) for 2023.5.x edit: (now 8,609 (4.5%)) edit: (now 9,096 (4.7%)) so I assume a lot more people are having successes (but we usually don't hear about those)

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 Onvif port invalid literal for int() with base 10: #92603 fixes Binary sensor in ONVIF integration not available after last update with Bosch FLEXIDOME IP turret 3000i IR #91089 fixes XM530AI AZISHN 1080P 2.0MP Wifi IP Camera live stream not working #91678 fixes CamHipro Wireless WiFi 5MP 240X ZOOM Camera cannot parse XML or respond to GetCapabilities with 2023.5.x and later #92308
• 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
• I have followed the perfect PR recommendations
• 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.

[home-assistant]

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

Code owner commands

Code owners of onvif 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 onvif Removes the current integration label and assignees on the pull request, add the integration domain after the command.

[bdraco]

This is working great and its all bug fixes but there is a lot of refactoring here so I'm still doing a lot of manual testing.

[bdraco]

down to 8 more cameras to test ...

[bdraco]

thats all the cameras. found a small race in the webhook setup that is now fixed as well so I'll need to start testing over....

[bdraco]

Looks like I'm not going to have time to finish a full retest before I'm traveling so this will have to wait a week until I get back and can finish testing.

[bdraco]

Retest with the original 42 cameras + the 9 more that showed up while I was traveling looks good.