Migrate errors

[synesthesiam]

We plan to add some new error messages, and migrate previous errors to be more precise. The following core PR in HA implements some of the new errors: home-assistant/core#109269

The existing no_domain and no_device_class errors have been renamed to no_domain_in_area and no_device_class_in_area. Additionally, no_entity has been renamed to no_device.

A complete list of the proposed errors are here:

• no_intent - Intent was not recognized.
• handle_error - Unexpected error while handling intent.
• no_area - Area does not exist.
• no_domain - No devices exist for a domain.
• no_domain_exposed - No devices are exposed for a domain.
• no_domain_in_area - No devices in an area exist for a domain.
• no_domain_in_area_exposed - No devices in an area are exposed for a domain.
• no_device_class - No devices of a class exist.
• no_device_class_exposed - No devices of a class are exposed.
• no_device_class_in_area - No devices of a class exist in an area.
• no_device_class_in_area_exposed - No devices of a class are exposed in an area.
• no_entity - Entity does not exist.
• no_entity_exposed - Entity is not exposed.
• no_entity_in_area - Entity does not exist in area.
• no_entity_in_area_exposed - Entity in area is not exposed.
• duplicate_entities - More than one entity matched with the same name.
• duplicate_entities_in_area - More than one entity in an area matched with the same name.

[synesthesiam]

@tetele From the user's perspective, I don't think the device/entity distinction is important. This is only for error responses, and doesn't mean that the intents themselves will not receive entity names or anything.

@v1k70rk4 Go ahead and merge. I will wait as long as I can and clean up on my end.

@jlpouffier It would be no_device_in_area in this case. A confusing case is when you have both a device and and area that don't exist: "turn on the monkey in the spaceship". In this case, I went with no_area.

[tetele]

@synesthesiam it's fine for the sentences, those can be perfected later on. My issue was with the keys, i feel as though they create confusion between devices and entities

[jlpouffier]

@synesthesiam Great, with @piitaya we created another PR, we will merge later (#1909), after yours

[synesthesiam]

@synesthesiam it's fine for the sentences, those can be perfected later on. My issue was with the keys, i feel as though they create confusion between devices and entities

Do you see any benefit to having both no_device and no_entity keys? If it was combined into no_device_or_entity, then there would be confusion about which variable to use: {{ device }} or {{ entity }}.

[tetele]

I have referenced that PR in which i have made devices available (actual HA devices, not entities) as a prefilled slot. I still want to do that, although i will have to rewritw the PR.

As such, we will need both no_entity and no_device errors going forward. I think it's a bad idea to use no_device as a key for something that is a missing entity, not a missing device. The lingo exposed to the user through the error message is less relevant in this argument.

[synesthesiam]

OK, I am changing "device" to "entity" in the relevant keys. We'll add device keys later as needed.

[tetele]

@synesthesiam I've edited the PR description to reflect the rollback to entity