Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 92.86%. Comparing base (122849f) to head (0da9c38).

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1639      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.82%   92.86%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         157      157              
  Lines        9649     9698      +49     
  Branches      976      981       +5     
==========================================
+ Hits         8957     9006      +49     
  Misses        492      492              
  Partials      200      200              

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

@rytilahti I was actually thinking since this is pertaining to the SmartCamDevice, I just create wifi_scan and wifi_join in the smartcamdevice.py files instead. I didn't realize the smartcamdevice.py used the same wifi_scan and wifi_join as the smartdevice.py and didn't have their own functions. Thoughts? It would change how I have this setup and make it cleaner since the new functions would be in there without the back and forth in the smartdevice.py

I was actually thinking since this is pertaining to the SmartCamDevice, I just create wifi_scan and wifi_join in the smartcamdevice.py files instead. I didn't realize the smartcamdevice.py used the same wifi_scan and wifi_join as the smartdevice.py and didn't have their own functions. Thoughts? It would change how I have this setup and make it cleaner since the new functions would be in there without the back and forth in the smartdevice.py

Ah, it probabbly makes sense to move them there if that's the case, but I think we could still proceed to clean up the implementation and reuse the interfaces wherever it makes sense. Some parts of the scanning (fallbacks to other methods) will probably need some thought to see how it fits the best API-wise.

I'll update everything after a bit and let you know when to take another look. I think the original implementation in the smartdevice.py was fine for those devices, we just need to add the functions to the smartcamdevice.py and have it use those instead of the ones in the smartdevice.py...will let you know.

@rytilahti I made the following changes:

• Moved the new WiFi handling to the smartcamedevice.py and reverted all of the complex changes to the smartdevice.py. This allowed for simpler, cleaner WiFi handling in the smartcamdevice.py all around and was easier to work with.
• Modified the wifi CLI to make the keytype optional for the smartcamdevice.py since keytype is not handled in the new wifi join.
• Improved the wifi join by implementing a scan at the beginning of the join and pulling the required information from the scan without having to manually input all of it from the CLI. We could make a similar change to the other WiFi handlers in iotdevice.py and smartdevice.py and get rid of the keytype CLI argument completely. That would be up to you and done in another PR.
• Updated all the test coverage correctly to handle the wifi changes.