Add trigger for vacuum returning to dock

[dmorra12]

Proposed change

Adds a trigger for the vacuum entity for the existing activity state:

• VacuumActivity.RETURNING

Note: Triggers for the vacuum entity were introduced in #156870.

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:
• Link to documentation pull request:
• Link to developer documentation pull request:
• Link to frontend pull request:

Checklist

• I understand the code I am submitting and can explain how it works.
• 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.
• Any generated code has been carefully reviewed for correctness and compliance with project standards.

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.

To help with the load of incoming pull requests:

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

[home-assistant]

Hi @dmorra12

It seems you haven't yet signed a CLA. Please do so here.

Once you do that we will be able to review and accept this pull request.

Thanks!

[home-assistant]

Hey there @home-assistant/core, mind taking a look at this pull request as it has been labeled with an integration (vacuum) you are listed as a code owner for? Thanks!

Code owner commands

Code owners of vacuum can trigger bot actions by commenting:

• @home-assistant close Closes the pull request.
• @home-assistant rename Awesome new title Renames the pull request.
• @home-assistant reopen Reopen the pull request.
• @home-assistant unassign vacuum Removes the current integration label and assignees on the pull request, add the integration domain after the command.
• @home-assistant add-label needs-more-information Add a label (needs-more-information, problem in dependency, problem in custom component) to the pull request.
• @home-assistant remove-label needs-more-information Remove a label (needs-more-information, problem in dependency, problem in custom component) on the pull request.

[SanderBlom]

@dmorra12 you need to add the missing label. See the required-labels check output for valid labels

[dmorra12]

@dmorra12 you need to add the missing label. See the required-labels check output for valid labels

Hey @SanderBlom, the labels section isn't showing as editable by me for this PR, otherwise I would add the bugfix myself. Is it possible that it's maintainer/bot only?

I had assumed that changing the status from draft -> ready would trigger a re-scan of the template checkboxes but that doesn't seem to be the case

[SanderBlom]

@dmorra12 Unsure. I just created a PR and I think it automatically added the correct label probably based on the PR title or description. You can try to update the description or title of you PR and see if triggers a new check from the bot, if not, you probably have to wait until a maintainers manually adds it.

[AmGarera]

Looks good to me! Code follows the existing patterns, tests cover everything, and the icon choices make sense. Nice addition.

[MS2620]

All looks good, code follows the design patterns set from before, test seems to have covered everything. It's a nice addition and one that should be added.