WIP User client

[tpoliaw]

Implementation of a simple user client following discussion in #1284

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 98.36957% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 94.90%. Comparing base (038fe03) to head (3ad951e).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/blueapi/cli/format.py	94.59%	2 Missing ⚠️
src/blueapi/cli/cli.py	85.71%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1323      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.76%   94.90%   +0.13%     
==========================================
  Files          42       42              
  Lines        2752     2866     +114     
==========================================
+ Hits         2608     2720     +112     
- Misses        144      146       +2     

☔ 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.

[DominicOram]

Some initial thoughts without having looked into it too much:

• Without docs/more usage tests it's not obvious to me what the interface is supposed to look like. It looks like I can run my plan by either doing client.plans.my_plan(args) or something like client.run_task(TaskRequest(name="my_plan"...). We should only allow one and make the other private. client.plans.my_plan(args) feels quite magic to me but I do quite like it as an interface as it reads really nicely for the end scripts
• Should: What is the difference between run_task and create_and_start_task seems to me we only need one?
• Could: I think that for a user a task and a plan are pretty synonymous so I would change the wording so that the client just talks about plans, not tasks

[tpoliaw]

Thanks for looking at it. You're right, it needs a lot more docs but I wanted to wait to check the interface was vaguely right before writing it up. I'll add something to the PR for now.

• It looks like I can run my plan by either doing client.plans.my_plan(args) or something like client.run_task(TaskRequest(name="my_plan"...). We should only allow one and make the other private.

The client.plans.my_plan(client.devices.stage.x, optional=other) interface is the one added here and is the one intended for use in scripts.

The run_task/create_and_start_task methods were there before and I didn't want to break backwards compatibility too much. Maybe if we're changing it anyway, breaking everything at once isn't the end of the world.

• Should: What is the difference between run_task and create_and_start_task seems to me we only need one?

run_task blocks, create_and_start doesn't

• Could: I think that for a user a task and a plan are pretty synonymous so I would change the wording so that the client just talks about plans, not tasks

Not a bad idea but all the task related things were here before this PR so should be a separate change. Could be rolled into #1080 as that already removes the TaskRequest parameters