Use different Tuya cluster for _TZE200_yjjdcqsq temp sensor

[Maddimax]

Proposed change

When using Var04, my temp sensor cannot read any values. With Var03 the main values (temp, humidity and battery can be read).

Additional information

The raw signature of the device:

"signature": {
      "node_descriptor": "NodeDescriptor(logical_type=<LogicalType.EndDevice: 2>, complex_descriptor_available=0, user_descriptor_available=0, reserved=0, aps_flags=0, frequency_band=<FrequencyBand.Freq2400MHz: 8>, mac_capability_flags=<MACCapabilityFlags.AllocateAddress: 128>, manufacturer_code=4417, maximum_buffer_size=66, maximum_incoming_transfer_size=66, server_mask=10752, maximum_outgoing_transfer_size=66, descriptor_capability_field=<DescriptorCapability.NONE: 0>, *allocate_address=True, *is_alternate_pan_coordinator=False, *is_coordinator=False, *is_end_device=True, *is_full_function_device=False, *is_mains_powered=False, *is_receiver_on_when_idle=False, *is_router=False, *is_security_capable=False)",
      "endpoints": {
        "1": {
          "profile_id": "0x0104",
          "device_type": "0x0051",
          "input_clusters": [
            "0x0000",
            "0x0004",
            "0x0005",
            "0xef00"
          ],
          "output_clusters": [
            "0x000a",
            "0x0019"
          ]
        }
      },
      "manufacturer": "_TZE200_yjjdcqsq",
      "model": "TS0601"
    },

Checklist

• The changes are tested and work correctly
• pre-commit checks pass / the code has been formatted using Black
• Tests have been added to verify that the new code works

[Maddimax]

@Jonas-Meyer97 Since you added the device to variant 04 in the first place, can you check and see if your devices still work with Variant 03 as well?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 88.18%. Comparing base (e3c115e) to head (e7f813b).
Report is 3 commits behind head on dev.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##              dev    #3244   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.18%   88.18%           
=======================================
  Files         301      301           
  Lines        9412     9412           
=======================================
  Hits         8300     8300           
  Misses       1112     1112           

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

[Jonas-Meyer97]

@Maddimax Sorry, I wasn't able to try it earlier. With variant 03, my device no longer reports the battery status. I tested it with two different devices and waited 24 hours. It seems there are two different variants for _TZE200_yjjdcqsq. I have attached the signature for my device, which is the same for all my devices reporting as _TZE200_yjjdcqsq. Perhaps it is possible to filter on a different parameter between these two variants, such as device_type or the available input_clusters. Unfortunately, I'm a novice with Zigpy and can't contribute much, but I hope this information is helpful.

"signature": {
  "node_descriptor": "NodeDescriptor(logical_type=<LogicalType.EndDevice: 2>, complex_descriptor_available=0, user_descriptor_available=0, reserved=0, aps_flags=0, frequency_band=<FrequencyBand.Freq2400MHz: 8>, mac_capability_flags=<MACCapabilityFlags.AllocateAddress: 128>, manufacturer_code=4417, maximum_buffer_size=66, maximum_incoming_transfer_size=66, server_mask=10752, maximum_outgoing_transfer_size=66, descriptor_capability_field=<DescriptorCapability.NONE: 0>, *allocate_address=True, *is_alternate_pan_coordinator=False, *is_coordinator=False, *is_end_device=True, *is_full_function_device=False, *is_mains_powered=False, *is_receiver_on_when_idle=False, *is_router=False, *is_security_capable=False)",
  "endpoints": {
	"1": {
	  "profile_id": "0x0104",
	  "device_type": "0x0302",
	  "input_clusters": [
		"0x0000",
		"0x0001",
		"0x0004",
		"0x0005",
		"0x0402",
		"0x0405",
		"0xef00"
	  ],
	  "output_clusters": [
		"0x000a",
		"0x0019"
	  ]
	}
  },
  "manufacturer": "_TZE200_yjjdcqsq",
  "model": "TS0601"
}

[TheJulianJES]

Hmm, it's not ideal that there are apparently two almost identical versions of this sensor.
The only difference between the two different Tuya manufacturer clusters is indeed the battery:

zha-device-handlers/zhaquirks/tuya/ts0601_sensor.py

Lines 50 to 95 in 915ff9b

	class TemperatureHumidityManufCluster(TuyaMCUCluster):
	"""Tuya Manufacturer Cluster with Temperature and Humidity data points."""
	dp_to_attribute: dict[int, DPToAttributeMapping] = {
	1: DPToAttributeMapping(
	TuyaTemperatureMeasurement.ep_attribute,
	"measured_value",
	converter=lambda x: x * 10, # decidegree to centidegree
	),
	2: DPToAttributeMapping(
	TuyaRelativeHumidity.ep_attribute,
	"measured_value",
	# converter=lambda x: x * 10, --> move conversion to TuyaRelativeHumidity cluster
	),
	4: DPToAttributeMapping(
	TuyaPowerConfigurationCluster2AAA.ep_attribute,
	"battery_percentage_remaining",
	converter=lambda x: x * 2, # double reported percentage
	),
	}
	data_point_handlers = {
	1: "_dp_2_attr_update",
	2: "_dp_2_attr_update",
	4: "_dp_2_attr_update",
	}
	class TemperatureHumidityBatteryStatesManufCluster(TuyaMCUCluster):
	"""Tuya Manufacturer Cluster with Temperature and Humidity data points. Battery states 25, 50 and 100%."""
	dp_to_attribute: dict[int, DPToAttributeMapping] = {
	1: TemperatureHumidityManufCluster.dp_to_attribute[1],
	2: TemperatureHumidityManufCluster.dp_to_attribute[2],
	3: DPToAttributeMapping(
	TuyaPowerConfigurationCluster2AAA.ep_attribute,
	"battery_percentage_remaining",
	converter=lambda x: {0: 25, 1: 50, 2: 100}[x], # double reported percentage
	),
	}
	data_point_handlers = {
	1: "_dp_2_attr_update",
	2: "_dp_2_attr_update",
	3: "_dp_2_attr_update",
	}

We might be able to parse Tuya datapoints 3 and 4 and map them onto the same battery_percentage_remaining attribute.
I'll put this PR into draft for now.