Add common interface for vacuums

[2pirko]

Created first simple VaccumDevice interface

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1368 (01406ea) into master (efe68e0) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 95.45%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1368      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.17%   84.18%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         133      135       +2     
  Lines       13330    13347      +17     
  Branches     1484     1485       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits        11220    11236      +16     
- Misses       1899     1900       +1     
  Partials      211      211              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
miio/interfaces/vacuuminterface.py	90.00% <90.00%> (ø)
...io/integrations/vacuum/dreame/dreamevacuum_miot.py	76.35% <100.00%> (+0.08%)	⬆️
miio/integrations/vacuum/mijia/g1vacuum.py	74.32% <100.00%> (+0.17%)	⬆️
miio/integrations/vacuum/roborock/vacuum.py	63.23% <100.00%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
...io/integrations/vacuum/roidmi/roidmivacuum_miot.py	89.48% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
miio/integrations/vacuum/viomi/viomivacuum.py	57.88% <100.00%> (+0.11%)	⬆️
miio/interfaces/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

📣 Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

[rytilahti]

Hi @2pirko, take a look at my alternative proposal #1373. It is based on typing.Protocol, so it is not necessary to inherit from the interface class, although doing so helps to spot the mistakes.

[2pirko]

Hi @2pirko, take a look at my alternative proposal #1373. It is based on typing.Protocol, so it is not necessary to inherit from the interface class, although doing so helps to spot the mistakes.

I do not have any experience with Protocol, so I cannot comment, if there is any advantage compare to abstract class and inheritance. From documentation it seems Protocol is designed for run-time checks, while inheritance could be better for statically written code, helping to ensure, all abstract methods are implemented.

[2pirko]

@rytilahti , could you please approve or reject the pull request? So I know whether it makes sense to continue on that.

[rytilahti]

From documentation it seems Protocol is designed for run-time checks, while inheritance could be better for statically written code, helping to ensure, all abstract methods are implemented.

Correct. I was just thinking about not requiring all integrations to add all potential methods that should be a part of the common API. On hindsight, I think your proposal makes makes more sense. I.e., the abstract base class should provide the basic features that ought to be supported, and maybe extend that using protocols for extra features that can be implemented if the device supports such.

So let's proceed with your proposal with the following changes:

1. Move the abstract VacuumInterface to miio/interfaces/vacuuminterface.py. I'm not completely sure if it should be simply called Vacuum or include the interface word on it, but that can be clarified later on.
2. Use multi-inheritance to enforce the interface in implementation classes. This avoids coupling the interface with the underlying "transport" (miio/miot) -- vacuum implementations using miot for communication should inherit from both MiotDevice and from the vacuum interface.

[2pirko]

Ready for merge

[2pirko]

@rytilahti , could you merge this one? I'll extend the API in next pull request.

[2pirko]

@rytilahti any updates?

[2pirko]

@rytilahti, could you merge this one? I'll extend the API in next pull request.

[rytilahti]

Looks good to me, just a minor nitpick wrt. the exported symbols and then this is good to go.

Btw, you can always use different code branches as a base branch for any future developments to avoid deadlocks when code reviews are pending :-)

[2pirko]

@rytilahti , ready for merge again

[rytilahti]

Looks great, thanks for working on this @2pirko! The CI issue is unrelated so let's merge this.

[2pirko]

Haleluja!!!!!