Added Equal(object) to ServiceTarget so FluentAssertions of equality work correctly

[edleno2]

Proposed change

When writing unit tests using Fluent Assertion I discovered that equality checks against ServiceTarget can only be done as reference equality. This would be extremely hard to use since the creation of ServiceTargets often happens in internal code. This code adds Equal(object) which matches the signature used by Fluent Assertions when CallService is used with a target of "object?".

Type of change

• Dependency upgrade
• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• 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 change did cause one regression of a unit test. The test relied on the LACK of an equals so that the comparison between a class (ServiceTarget) and a record (HassTarget) was done on a member by member basis. Once an equals was added this lead to the issue that neither the class nor the record could equate each other. Added an option to force member comparison. This is a known limitation with class to record comparisons (see answer 2 in this link)

Added unit tests to show which equal operators will work, and which will not. Keeping to the principle to make the least impactive change I did not override the == or != operator for actual ServiceTarget classes. Those type of comparisons will still default to checking object reference equality.

Checklist

• The code change is tested and works locally.
• Local tests pass. Your PR cannot be merged unless tests pass
• The code compiles without warnings (code quality check)
• Tests have been added to verify that the new code works.

[edleno2]

Noticed I hadn't added not equal test cases. Just to show that all not equal checks are just the negative of Equal(object).

[edleno2]

Do I also need to clean up the "empty" commit from resyncing my repo and squash the commits. I saw some comments in discord about commits not being signed but I don't understand the signing process.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 27.58621% with 21 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82%. Comparing base (8be1690) to head (6bcfe26).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/HassModel/NetDaemon.HassModel/ServiceTarget.cs	27%	16 Missing and 5 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@         Coverage Diff          @@
##           main   #1323   +/-   ##
====================================
- Coverage    82%     82%   -1%     
====================================
  Files       197     197           
  Lines      3871    3900   +29     
  Branches    429     442   +13     
====================================
+ Hits       3194    3202    +8     
- Misses      511     527   +16     
- Partials    166     171    +5     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	82% <27%> (-1%)	⬇️

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

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[FrankBakkerNl]

I think making ServiceTarget a record will do the same thing with less chance of mistakes. Not sure why I did not do that originally.

[helto4real]

@FrankBakkerNl what do you think we should proceed with this PR?

[FrankBakkerNl]

I think the record solution would be better. @edleno2 did you want to do this?