Fix detecting heating circuits

[liudger]

This pull request enhances the detection logic for available heating circuits in the BSBLAN integration, making it more robust by introducing a secondary status check and expanding test coverage. The main goal is to ensure that only truly active circuits are reported as available, accounting for real-world controller responses.

Key improvements and additions:

Detection logic improvements:

• The get_available_circuits method now performs a two-step check: it first queries the operating mode parameter, then verifies the circuit's status via a dedicated parameter. Circuits are only considered available if both checks pass, filtering out inactive or unsupported circuits more reliably. [1] [2]

New constants for status checks:

• Introduced CIRCUIT_STATUS_PARAMS and INACTIVE_CIRCUIT_MARKER in constants.py to support the new status-based detection logic. [1] [2] [3]

Expanded and improved test coverage:

• Added comprehensive tests for various scenarios, including:
  • All circuits active
  • Only some circuits active
  • Circuits marked inactive by status
  • Circuits with empty status responses (unsupported)
  • Status request failures (fail-safe behavior)
    [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

These changes make the circuit detection more accurate and robust, especially for real-world device behaviors.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 99.89%. Comparing base (fe01a19) to head (1839ab0).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1382   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.89%   99.89%           
=======================================
  Files           6        6           
  Lines         985      997   +12     
  Branches      137      139    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits          984      996   +12     
  Partials        1        1           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes the get_available_circuits detection method in the BSBLAN client to more reliably identify which heating circuits are actually active. It addresses a real-world scenario where BSB-LAN controllers return valid operating mode responses for all three circuits even if only some are physically installed/active, using a secondary status parameter check (8000/8001/8002) that returns value="0" and desc="---" for inactive circuits.

Changes:

• Two-step circuit availability check: operating mode probe + status parameter validation, with fail-safe exclusion if either check fails
• New constants CIRCUIT_STATUS_PARAMS and INACTIVE_CIRCUIT_MARKER added to constants.py
• Expanded test scenarios in test_circuit.py covering all new code paths; IP address example updated to RFC 5737 TEST-NET address; speed_test.py refactored into pluggable benchmark suites

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
src/bsblan/bsblan.py	get_available_circuits updated with two-step probe logic using new constants
src/bsblan/constants.py	Added CIRCUIT_STATUS_PARAMS and INACTIVE_CIRCUIT_MARKER constants
tests/test_circuit.py	New and updated tests covering inactive-by-status, empty-status, status-failure, and all-three-active scenarios
examples/speed_test.py	Refactored into pluggable benchmark suites with CLI support; updated example IP
examples/fetch_param.py	Updated example IP to RFC 5737 TEST-NET address
README.md	Updated example IP to RFC 5737 TEST-NET address

[Copilot]

The test function name test_get_available_circuits_status_failure_still_detects is misleading. The name implies that the circuit is still detected when the status request fails, but both the docstring and the assertion (assert circuits == []) confirm the opposite: the circuit is excluded (fail-safe behavior). The function name should be renamed to something like test_get_available_circuits_status_failure_excludes_circuit to accurately describe what the test verifies.

[Copilot]

The first line of the docstring, "Test that a circuit is still detected if status request fails," contradicts what the test actually verifies. The test shows that the circuit is excluded (not detected) when the status request fails. This is correctly stated in the second paragraph ("the circuit should be excluded") and confirmed by the assertion circuits == []. The first line should instead read something like "Test that a circuit is excluded (fail-safe) if its status request fails."

Suggested change

	"""Test that a circuit is still detected if status request fails.
	"""Test that a circuit is excluded (fail-safe) if status request fails.