Added a decorator to connect to the heat pump

[Guzz-T]

Using a decorator we can simply re-use the code to connect to the heat pump. This allows us to offers several read / write functions like only read the paramters.

Fixes #130

[gerw]

Shouldn't it be possible to use your _connect as a "real" decorator (with @) around the read/write methods?

[Guzz-T]

Unfortunately, a "real" decorator cannot use self as an argument. Without self, however, the internal fields cannot be accessed correctly. Also pylint complains.

[gerw]

I tried a little bit and it seems to be possible with a "real" decorator:

def decorator(func):
    def _decorator(self, *args, **kwargs):
        self.num_calls += 1
        return func(self, *args, **kwargs)
    return _decorator

class TestSample:
    def __init__(self):
        self.num_calls = 0

    @decorator
    def dummy(self, foo):
        print(foo)

t = TestSample()

print(f"t.num_calls: {t.num_calls}")
t.dummy(2)
print(f"t.num_calls: {t.num_calls}")

There are also no complaints by pylint (only concerning missing docstrings and so on).

[Guzz-T]

Have you tried accessing private fields like self._num_calls instead of self.num_calls?

I previously had the decorator inside the class. If you place it outside - like in your example - you at least bypass the fact that pylint requires a self argument.

[gerw]

Yes, the following is pylint-compatible:

"""Random module"""
def decorator(func):
    """Random decorator"""
    def _decorator(self, *args, **kwargs):
        self._num_calls += 1
        return func(self, *args, **kwargs)
    return _decorator

class TestSample:
    """Random class"""
    def __init__(self):
        self._num_calls = 0

    def another_method(self):
        """Random member fctn"""
        return self._num_calls

    @decorator
    def dummy(self, foobar):
        """Random member fctn"""
        print(foobar)

t = TestSample()

print(t.another_method())
t.dummy(2)
print(t.another_method())

[kbabioch]

@Guzz-T Could you elaborate on what the vision here is? How do you envision to use this in the future?

[github-actions]

Coverage Report

File	Stmts	Miss	Cover	Missing
luxtronik
__init__.py	134	106	21%	38–54, 61–66, 69–73, 79, 83, 102–113, 116–119, 122–142, 145–160, 163–180, 183–198, 202–204, 208–209, 213–214
__main__.py	21	21	0%	2–48
datatypes.py	235	12	95%	37, 42, 47, 57, 72–75, 80–83, 92
discover.py	43	34	21%	25–77
luxtronik/scripts
dump_changes.py	44	44	0%	5–93
dump_luxtronik.py	28	28	0%	5–64
TOTAL	588	245	58%

Tests	Skipped	Failures	Errors	Time
110	4 💤	0 ❌	0 🔥	0.637s ⏱️

[Guzz-T]

@Guzz-T Could you elaborate on what the vision here is? How do you envision to use this in the future?

@kbabioch: Does the comment in #130 answer your question?

[Guzz-T]

Yes, the following is pylint-compatible:

@gerw: I followed your suggestions, but now we get several W0212 pylint warnings

[gerw]

This is strange. Pylist does not complain about something like self._num_calls += 1, but about self._num_calls = self._num_calls + 1.

[Guzz-T]

This is strange. Pylist does not complain about something like self._num_calls += 1, but about self._num_calls = self._num_calls + 1.

I reverted the changes because it would just be a different style of the decorator

[gerw]

Since we are not saving the decorated function, it seems not necessary to implement this as a decorator. What about something like

    def _with_lock_and_connect(self, func, *args, **kwargs):
        with self._lock:
            is_none = self._socket is None
            if is_none:
                self._socket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
            if is_none or is_socket_closed(self._socket):
                self._socket.connect((self._host, self._port))
                LOGGER.info(
                    "Connected to Luxtronik heat pump %s:%s", self._host, self._port
                )
            return func(*args, **kwargs)


    def read(self):
        return self._with_lock_and_connect(self._read)

?

[Guzz-T]

There isn't just one way of doing it. My version works like a "@"-decorator.

[Guzz-T]

Is there still interest in these changes?