New header is now required for accessing some data

[DurgNomis-drol]

Toyota recently started to require this header.

DurgNomis-drol/ha_toyota#101

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #151 (3951e44) into master (078b48c) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #151   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.59%   94.59%           
=======================================
  Files          27       27           
  Lines        1314     1314           
=======================================
  Hits         1243     1243           
  Misses         71       71           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	94.59% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
mytoyota/controller.py	36.93% <ø> (ø)

📣 Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

[DurgNomis-drol]

We may need to make a LTS release for the 0.7.* branch where this is included, as I don't have time to finish moving my Home Assistant integration to the new scheme in the near future (I am moving in two weeks). What do you think about that? I have never don that before, so I am unsure if it is a viable way 😃

[joro75]

@DurgNomis-drol I approved, the PR, because I wanted to have this fixed soon, because also my Domoticz plugin requires the new header. I do have a remark. You used '4.4.0' as the X_TME-APP-VERSION. However in my official Toyota MyT app on my phone, the version number is: 4.10.0. Shouldn't we use that '4.10.0' version?

I'm aware that by changing the version number some details in the communication possibly could be different. This also raises the other question: Why did you specify '4.4.0' as the version?

[joro75]

@DurgNomis-drol

We may need to make a LTS release for the 0.7.* branch where this is included, as I don't have time to finish moving my Home Assistant integration to the new scheme in the near future (I am moving in two weeks). What do you think about that? I have never don that before, so I am unsure if it is a viable way 😃

It is not a problem at all to maintain a separate 0.7 (LTS) branch. Also backporting this change into that 0.7 branch should be possible. Shall I configure and arrange it?

[DurgNomis-drol]

@joro75

1. There was not specific reason for choosing 4.4.0. It was just a quick test I made. Lets use 4.10.0 instead as we know that it is compatible with the latest app version. I will create a new PR for this.

2. I would be very grateful if you could take the lead on the backport. Will review and approve when you need it, and anything else that is needed. 🚀

[joro75]

@DurgNomis-drol Regarding:

2. I would be very grateful if you could take the lead on the backport. Will review and approve when you need it, and anything else that is needed. 🚀

Ok. Thanks, I will do.