Update elmax_api to v0.0.5

[albertogeniola]

Proposed change

Upgrade dependency elmax_api to 0.0.5. Needed for #117689.

Changes introduced to 0.0.5:
https://github.com/albertogeniola/elmax-api/releases/tag/v0.0.5

Full changelog also available here:
https://github.com/albertogeniola/elmax-api/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md

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)
• Deprecation (breaking change to happen in the future)
• 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 #
• This PR is related to issue: Elmax: alarm control issues #117650
• 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
• I have followed the perfect PR recommendations
• The code has been formatted using Ruff (ruff format 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.

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

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

[bdraco]

It doesn't looks like there are any bugfixes in this lib bump that would require a backport. Does this need to be backported?

[albertogeniola]

No, it doesn't. To fix the bug I am referring to, we also need to apply another (separate) PR (#117689)

[bdraco]

If #117689 gets tagged for backport, we can come back and tag this one. #117689 is probably too large to backport though and beta on the 29th so it might be better to wait for it to go though the normal release process.

[albertogeniola]

I agree. Let's follow the standard release model. Thank you!

…

On Mon, May 20, 2024, 07:18 J. Nick Koston ***@***.***> wrote: If #117689 <#117689> gets tagged for backport, we can come back and tag this one. #117689 <#117689> is probably too large to backport though and beta on the 29th so it might be better to wait for it to go though the normal release process. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#117693 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDO7C7Q6VXLOM62GFVO5KLZDGBRHAVCNFSM6AAAAABH5QMBV6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJZGY4DMMBZGE> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>