Some API tweaking for openevse integration.

[KipK]

Following up #402, I create an issue here as its more appropriated.

1/ If a claim or an override is already present, API should add the property on it, instead of creating a new claim/override with only the latest property.

example: EVSE is manually set to enabled, user change the charge_rate, it then just create a new override with only "charge_current" , state is removed.
should instead create a new override with "charge_current" and "state"

2/ Same as above, If a claim/override have more than one property ( but auto_release ), removing a property should keep the other properties but not delete the claim/override. If there's only one property, it then should remove the override/claim.

3/ setting charge rate to its max value ( aka "max_current_soft" ) should remove the charge_current property from the override if there's other properties, or remove the override if there's only the "charge_current" one.

In all cases, it should not consider "auto_release" if set to "true" , as this one is always added to a claim/override by default. You can just ignore this property like it does on OpenEVSE UI side as there's no use case for override. But probably better to test the boolean state and just ignore it if it's true.

[firstof9]

1/ If a claim or an override is already present, API should add the property on it, instead of creating a new claim/override with only the latest property.

As I understand it the override API is just a single setting, and calling it again should just add to the override that's in place currently. As for the claims, a similar thing as long as the client is the same. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

3/ setting charge rate to its max value ( aka "max_current_soft" ) should remove the charge_current property from the override if there's other properties, or remove the override if there's only the "charge_current" one.

This shouldn't be too hard.

[KipK]

/override endpoint is an abstraction of /claim endpoint but only for "manual override" service id.
It just works the same as claims, can have all the claim properties too. ( state, charge_current, max_current )

When you create an override you can see it in /claim endpoint too.

For the claims, yes it should only consider the properties of the same service ID you use of course.

[firstof9]

Looking at the code for make_claim

python-openevse-http/openevsehttp/__main__.py

Lines 776 to 811 in 6cc39e5

	async def make_claim(
	self,
	state: str | None = None,
	charge_current: int | None = None,
	max_current: int | None = None,
	auto_release: bool = True,
	client: int = CLIENT,
	) -> Any:
	"""Make a claim."""
	if not self._version_check("4.1.0"):
	_LOGGER.debug("Feature not supported for older firmware.")
	raise UnsupportedFeature
	if state not in ["active", "disabled", None]:
	_LOGGER.error("Invalid claim state: %s", state)
	raise ValueError
	url = f"{self.url}claims/{client}"
	data: dict[str, Any] = {}
	data["auto_release"] = auto_release
	if state is not None:
	data["state"] = state
	if charge_current is not None:
	data["charge_current"] = charge_current
	if max_current is not None:
	data["max_current"] = max_current
	_LOGGER.debug("Claim data: %s", data)
	_LOGGER.debug("Setting up claim on %s", url)
	response = await self.process_request(
	url=url, method="post", data=data
	) # noqa: E501
	return response

I'm only adjusting the claim the library makes and only adjusting whatever variables are passed, but that only piles on the current claim then I assume right or would it wipe what's currently in the claim and use what's been passed to it?

[KipK]

On OpenEvse each time you make a new claim with same service ID or an override, you have to resend all the properties yes.

[firstof9]

Thanks for confirming.