Support lazy devices

[stan-dot]

Outlined the places where the code needs to be modify to support the requested features.

Some alignment must happen on what is the best format to store the devices that are lazy.

I'd rather do it in the start of the PR.
#363 and #504 would change how this works however I think that this PR is mergeable much earlier than that.

Then, on my end I think the lazy devices would be best presented as:

• early_devices: dict[str, Device] = field(default_factory=dict)
• lazy_devices: dict[str, Device] = field(default_factory=dict)
  properties on the Context object.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 91.06%. Comparing base (53bdbe2) to head (057367b).

❗ Current head 057367b differs from pull request most recent head 8ed8301

Please upload reports for the commit 8ed8301 to get more accurate results.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #515      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.10%   91.06%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files          40       40              
  Lines        1787     1779       -8     
==========================================
- Hits         1628     1620       -8     
  Misses        159      159              

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

[callumforrester]

PR title

[stan-dot]

Todo: just fix tests, then push and mark PR as ready

[stan-dot]

I commented in the ophyd-async repo towards the resolution of the test errors here

[coretl]

The relevant ophyd-async ticket is bluesky/ophyd-async#387, not bluesky/ophyd-async#413.

The short term fix is to cap numpy<2.0.0 like bluesky/ophyd-async#388.

[stan-dot]

@callumforrester so we need to support both ophydv1 and ophyd-async devices?

[stan-dot]

@callumforrester why do we import this as a sum of interfaces? I thought this kind of thing already exists inside bluesky?

[stan-dot]

I just realized that there is no clear way to see if a device is lazy or not. this might need to wait until DiamondLightSource/dodal#483 is done

[callumforrester]

@stan-dot yes both should be supported for now, dodal is going to fully move off ophys v1 eventually, but probably not soon

[stan-dot]

closing as out of date - the change of blueapi plan to register_plan is unrelated. furthermore no PR is meaningful here until the dodal issue is done

DiamondLightSource/dodal#483