Fix Netgear switch state update

[starkillerOG]

Breaking change

Proposed change

Request a coordinator update after blocking/allowing a device from the network.
Withouth this PR if the device is allowed on the network and the switch is toggled to block, the switch would go back to allow after 10 seconds and would then go to block after about 30 seconds (fairly slow scan intervall).
This PR fixes that behaviour by emediatly updating after a change.
Reported in issue: #67835

Type of change

• Dependency upgrade
• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New integration (thank you!)
• New feature (which adds functionality to an existing integration)
• Breaking change (fix/feature causing existing functionality to break)
• Code quality improvements to existing code or addition of tests

Additional information

• This PR fixes or closes issue: fixes #Netgear Integration - allow on network switch not functioning  #67835
• This PR is related to issue:
• Link to documentation pull request:

Checklist

• The code change is tested and works locally.
• Local tests pass. Your PR cannot be merged unless tests pass
• There is no commented out code in this PR.
• I have followed the development checklist
• The code has been formatted using Black (black --fast homeassistant tests)
• Tests have been added to verify that the new code works.

If user exposed functionality or configuration variables are added/changed:

• Documentation added/updated for www.home-assistant.io

If the code communicates with devices, web services, or third-party tools:

• The manifest file has all fields filled out correctly.
  Updated and included derived files by running: python3 -m script.hassfest.
• New or updated dependencies have been added to requirements_all.txt.
  Updated by running python3 -m script.gen_requirements_all.
• For the updated dependencies - a link to the changelog, or at minimum a diff between library versions is added to the PR description.
• Untested files have been added to .coveragerc.

The integration reached or maintains the following Integration Quality Scale:

• No score or internal
• 🥈 Silver
• 🥇 Gold
• 🏆 Platinum

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

• I have reviewed two other open pull requests in this repository.

[probot-home-assistant]

Hey there @hacf-fr, @Quentame, mind taking a look at this pull request as it has been labeled with an integration (netgear) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!
_{^{(message by CodeOwnersMention)}}

[MartinHjelmare]

There's a 10 second debounce when using async_request_refresh. If we don't want a debounce we should use async_refresh.

[starkillerOG]

@MartinHjelmare I am a bit torn on this, I know that the netgear API can be overloaded by sending to many requests wich can actually cause the API to crash in some rare cases (a reboot of the router is then nessesary).
So if someone makes an automation to for instance block a list of 10 devices at a specific time (for instance at bedtime of there childeren) I don't want to have 10 update API requests at once. (these updates request a whole list of properties for all connected devices so it is a rather big XML file that is requested from the Router, a single update normaly takes around 2 seconds).

Therefore I think the debounce is actually a good thing.

Am I correct that it will run the update immediately if the last update was more then 10 seconds ago?

What happens if we were to call async_refresh 10 times within 1 second while the actual update takes about 2 seconds (so 2x10 = 20 seconds), Note there is a AsyncLock on the API?

[MartinHjelmare]

Yes, the debouncer will run the refresh immediately if the last refresh was more than 10 seconds ago.

Since we have the lock, the calls will be done sequentially.

Should we stick with the debounced refresh then?

[starkillerOG]

Yes lets stick to the debounced refresh, I think that will cause less problems.