Added total sensor, hourly and previous cycle for energy based sensors

[miczlo]

1. Added total that never resets
2. Added an attribute to all sensors which is previous cycle - I feel it's more important for me to know how much energy I used last hour, day, week or month then till this point in the cycle. I'm tempted to actually add separate sensors for that to be honest to be able to have recorder track the history and give me better stats but still undecided
3. Changed the list of excluded words when creating the friendly name so that things like month or today don't get in there from some plugs like Tapo P110 for example
4. Added friendly name generation for the integration entries page based on another pull request but used same logic as in this repo as it's more robust I think plus again added more excluded words

[martinarva]

Hi @miczlo !

Thank you for contribution. I would like to merge your pull request and also @Kathou99 pull request #41, but i'm a bit afraid i will break something.

Would you be able to check both pull requests and check if its ok?

[miczlo]

Should be fine, I merged with @Kathou99 one before adding this pull request, but then reverted
3ed58e3
because it gave me errors and I didn't have time to find out why and why the change
I also changed the way they added friendly naming on the integration page as there seemed to be potential for double underscore to mess things up plus something wouldn't work and again couldn't be bothered.

[martinarva]

Should be fine, I merged with @Kathou99 one before adding this pull request, but then reverted 3ed58e3 because it gave me errors and I didn't have time to find out why and why the change I also changed the way they added friendly naming on the integration page as there seemed to be potential for double underscore to mess things up plus something wouldn't work and again couldn't be bothered.

So when i merge @Kathou99 first and then yours, everything should be ok?

[miczlo]

I think so but there will be a conflict or two as like I said I modified there code after the merge.

[martinarva]

I think so but there will be a conflict or two as like I said I modified there code after the merge.

@miczlo , could you please check the these two conflicts, so i can merge your pull request