Improve reading clarity of steps code in scripts helper

[arturpragacz]

Proposed change

Improve reading clarity of steps code in scripts helper.
No significant code changes, just reorganizing code to group it more logically and make it easier to read.

The only changes made are:

• the steps are grouped logically together
• helper functions are next to where they are used now
• the step function names now always start with async_step_
• the steps inside groups are ordered alphabetically

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:

Checklist

• 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.

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.

[CloCkWeRX]

This probably is better/nicer; it's just very difficult to review in either split or unified diff format; or by viewing the interim steps (moving one or two chunks at a time).

[arturpragacz]

For reviewing I'd suggest clicking on View file and simply looking at the new file.

[bdraco]

This probably is better/nicer; it's just very difficult to review in either split or unified diff format; or by viewing the interim steps (moving one or two chunks at a time).

I agree that is difficult to see what has changed. It would be nicer to do this in a few smaller merges and only rearrange the location of one function per merge so the changes can easily be seen.

[arturpragacz]

This probably is better/nicer; it's just very difficult to review in either split or unified diff format; or by viewing the interim steps (moving one or two chunks at a time).

I agree that is difficult to see what has changed. It would be nicer to do this in a few smaller merges and only rearrange the location of one function per merge so the changes can easily be seen.

I think splitting is a good idea, but going only one function per PR would be overkill.

Here's part 1: #138628

[bdraco]

The advantage to one per function is I can review it on my mobile and check it in my head vs waiting to have a time chunk at my desk which is much more of a premium. Either way we can get it merged eventually, it will take longer to review if I can't do it mobile

[bdraco]

I think splitting is a good idea, but going only one function per PR would be overkill.

Here's part 1: #138628

I checked each relocation manually, and merged that one so hopefully this one will be a bit smaller once rebased

[emontnemery]

Looks good. I've checked each moved block manually.