Improve group state behavior

[jbouwh]

Proposed change

Intention is to improve the group state behavior and allow an entity platform to have specific states in case there are more then one on or off states. This prepares for support of lock.open state we want to add. Currently only lock.unlocked is a valid open state.

The PR include the commits of #115866, but this change was reverted. Details of the final behaviour will be added to the PR's documentation

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
• 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:

• 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 @home-assistant/core, mind taking a look at this pull request as it has been labeled with an integration (group) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!

Code owner commands

Code owners of group 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 group 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.

[emontnemery]

@jbouwh The PR title is "Fix group off_on_mapping issue", but the description says:

The current code will cause an issue if we need assign on ON state to a OFF state if there are multiple ON states. This was indeed already fixed by #115866. Only the key was still used, not the mapping.

If the issue was fixed by PR #115866, why does it need fixing again?

[jbouwh]

@jbouwh The PR title is "Fix group off_on_mapping issue", but the description says:

The current code will cause an issue if we need assign on ON state to a OFF state if there are multiple ON states. This was indeed already fixed by #115866. Only the key was still used, not the mapping.

If the issue was fixed by PR #115866, why does it need fixing again?

Title was adjusted. The fix was intended for the lock.on PR #111968 which becomes domain with multiple on states. After all reviews the fix seemed not enough.

[bdraco]

For tests, maybe we add a mock platform that has the same issue as #111968 to show the issue is fixed?

[gjohansson-ST]

As written on discord to @jbouwh I don't like this mixin of a generic group state with platform dependent states but probably that's the way this needs to go?

[jbouwh]

Superseded by #116318