Restructure of honda carstate

[dek3rr]

-removed repeated code
-lowered dependency on fingerprint matching
-improved readability
-added comments

[jfrux]

It all looks good. My thoughts are that some of it, although might be more "Python-esque" is not as expressive. Do these improvements offer Python performance improvements when compiled down or are they aesthetic, preference, code-reuse, testability?

Also, should we start using something like a linter to get code-rules for the project to consolidate usage of specific things to keep things consistent moving forward?

Just FYI, I'm all about tapping into code-reuse and testability so I'm definitely NOT saying these changes should not be approved. I'm sure it would become more expressive to me once I'm more familiar with Python syntax as well.

[dek3rr]

I wouldn't assume any significant performance impact either way. This pull was mostly about replacing conditional logic that relied on fingerprints. Going forward this file should rely more on parsing the DBC. I think the use of get() may be what you refer to as "not as expressive." To me, this is pretty standard when working with unknown dictionary keys. I think it's also the cleanest approach when checking a nested dictionary.

[rbiasini]

@dekerr , we are going to cherry pick some of those changes, but leaving some of the restructure out. In particular cp.vl.get("DOORS_STATUS",{"empty" : None}).get('DOOR_OPEN_RR') seems a bit convoluted.
I agree we should think about a way to remove the conditional statements from carstate.py though.
Thanks!