admin/goodwe-addon
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests 1 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

CFG-01 review: widen the rule, refuse the firmware-veto case, fix the stop footgun

Browse Source 
Review findings, all confirmed in code before changing anything.

THE RULE DID NOT AUTHORISE ITS OWN BEST REFUSAL. The stated test was
"makes a safety mechanism inoperative, or makes a stated limit untrue",
and a blank setpoint_entity does neither - layer 1 pinning the inverter
at 0 W is the failsafe WORKING, as validate.py's own text admitted. The
real justification is a second, separate category: the add-on is inert
and indistinguishable from healthy. Stated as (a) and (b), with each
refusal tagged, and with both halves explicitly bounded - (a) is not
"any two numbers that could disagree", (b) is not "anything degraded".
Left implicit, the gap is where trivia-creep comes back in.

meter_max_age_s ABOVE THE FIRMWARE'S VETO IS NOW REFUSED. The schema
allows int(5,300); the firmware's threshold is a compile-time
`max_age_s: "30"` and it trips layer 1 at `p1_age_s >= 30`. At 120 the
add-on believes a 119 s reading is fresh and keeps commanding while the
board has already vetoed and is holding at 0 W - healthy meter, running
controller, nothing moving. Structurally identical to the max_w case,
and unlike max_w it is settable on this install, so the headline
behaviour finally has a live demonstration. That firmware file's own
comment says a lower bound on this "belongs in CFG-01, not here".

Only ABOVE is refused: below the veto the add-on gives up first, which
is fail-safe and visible on its own status page. Scoped to P1 being
enabled, because meter_max_age_s governs nothing otherwise.
FIRMWARE_INGEST_VETO_S cannot be imported from a compile-time YAML
substitution, so it carries a note on the single direction in which it
can go stale - and a warning that TEL-06 is editing `ingest_stale`, so a
matching integer may stop meaning a matching rule.

stop= WAS A LIVE FOOTGUN. It defaulted to None, which made a Controller
that cannot stop itself the DEFAULT one. On the late-refusal path that
meant: log the banner, return, and leave the process alive forever with
no control loop and no exit - the exact "inert but looks healthy"
failure this module exists to refuse. Now required and keyword-only, so
the broken shape does not construct; test_p1.py's five call sites pass
an Event.

That whole path had no test and no live demo. It has one now: it drives
run_control() against a device that only reports a narrower range once
the loop starts, and asserts it refuses, signals, returns, and writes
NOTHING - plus the converse, that an agreeing device leads to real
writes. This also covers the max_w composition that cannot be reached
through the Supervisor on the live install.

max_w <= 0 is refused. Schema-blocked in production, but
validate_startup_config() is the simulation suite's entry point too, and
a non-positive max_w inverts the arbiter's supervised bounds into a
contradiction that reads as a safety trip rather than a typo.

Verified live 2026-08-28 (backup goodwe_controller-cfg01r2-1787940076):
meter_max_age_s 120 refused with a message naming 120, 30, and THE
FIRMWARE WINS; no traceback; add-on restored byte-exact and running.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa
This commit is contained in:
glenn schrooyen
2026-08-28 20:05:10 +02:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent fc9bd89dca
commit 547d796c5d
5 changed files with 310 additions and 24 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
goodwe_controller/app/validate.py
+104 -10
View File
@@ -15,25 +15,45 @@ told is refused at startup, not survived at runtime.
WHERE THE LINE IS DRAWN, and why it is not further out. A validator that refuses
on trivia gets switched off by the first person it inconveniences, so this one
refuses on exactly three things, all of which share one property: **continuing
makes a safety mechanism inoperative or makes a stated limit untrue.**
refuses only where **continuing produces one of two outcomes:**
1. `max_w` outside the setpoint device's own rating.
(a) **a stated limit is untrue** - the operator configured a bound, a lower
layer silently enforces a different one, and nothing says which won; or
(b) **the add-on is inert and indistinguishable from healthy** - it starts,
serves its UI, reports green, and moves no energy, with no symptom that
separates it from a correctly-idle system.
⚠️ (b) IS NOT A SPECIAL CASE OF (a), and an earlier draft of this file wrongly
implied it was by claiming every refusal here "makes a safety mechanism
inoperative". It does not: when `setpoint_entity` is blank, layer 1 pinning the
inverter at 0 W is the failsafe WORKING. The problem is not that the system
becomes unsafe, it is that it becomes a very convincing impression of a working
controller - and an operator has no way to tell. That is its own reason to
refuse, and stating it as one is what stops the rule being stretched later to
cover mere untidiness.
Both halves have to stay narrow. (a) is not "any two numbers that could
disagree"; it is a bound the operator SET being overridden by a layer they
cannot see. (b) is not "anything degraded"; it is inert AND silent - if a red
NOT READY banner already names the problem, (b) does not apply.
1. `max_w` outside the setpoint device's own rating. [(a)]
The stated limit is untrue. arbiter.py's `supervised` SAFETY claim says the
output is bounded by ±max_w; it is not, it is bounded by the device, and the
two numbers disagree. Which one wins is a coin toss to anyone reading the
config.
2. No `setpoint_entity`.
This is a controller with no actuator, and nothing about it looks broken.
2. No `setpoint_entity`. [(b)]
A controller with no actuator, and nothing about it looks broken.
`write_setpoint()` returns immediately on a blank entity, so: no device
rating is ever read (the `device` SAFETY claim is never made at all), and
the ESP32 heartbeat - the thing that feeds LAYER 1 - never happens. The
add-on serves a UI, publishes MQTT, resolves claims, and moves nothing. It
is fail-safe by accident, not by design, and it is indistinguishable from
working.
add-on serves a UI, publishes MQTT, resolves claims, and moves nothing.
Layer 1 then holds the inverter at 0 W, which is the failsafe working
exactly as designed - this is (b), not (a). Nothing is unsafe; it is simply
impossible to tell from the outside that the thing is doing nothing.
3. A `meter_source` that can never produce a reading.
3. A `meter_source` that can never produce a reading. [(b)]
§5.1 makes P1 the only authoritative measurement and deliberately provides
no fallback, so a transport that cannot be built means `grid` is None
forever: permanent "inputs missing", 0 W, and a status page that reports a
@@ -41,6 +61,19 @@ makes a safety mechanism inoperative or makes a stated limit untrue.**
sent anything to yet. The predicates live in `p1.validate_meter_options()`,
which is also what `build_source()` uses - one definition, two callers.
4. `meter_max_age_s` above the firmware's own ingest veto. [(a)]
The purest example of (a) in the system, and structurally the same fault as
1. The add-on's schema accepts `int(5,300)`. The firmware's threshold is a
COMPILE-TIME SUBSTITUTION - `max_age_s: "30"` in
goodwe-master-stage4-failsafe.yaml - used by both its monotonic receipt
clock and its `ingest_stale` veto, which trips layer 1 on
`p1_age_s >= 30`. Set 120 and the add-on believes a 119 s reading is fresh
and keeps commanding into it, while the firmware vetoed at 30 s and is
holding the inverter at 0 W. Status page: healthy meter, running
controller, nothing moving, and no line anywhere saying the number you set
was overruled. That firmware file's own comment says a lower bound on this
"belongs in CFG-01, not here" - so here it is.
WHAT IS DELIBERATELY *NOT* REFUSED, because it is untidy rather than unsafe:
- `integrator_max_w` above `max_w`. DOCS.md is right that the only thing the
@@ -62,10 +95,29 @@ WHAT IS DELIBERATELY *NOT* REFUSED, because it is untidy rather than unsafe:
import logging
from .p1 import validate_meter_options
from .p1 import is_enabled, validate_meter_options
_LOG = logging.getLogger("goodwe.config")
# ⚠️ A MIRROR OF A FIRMWARE CONSTANT, AND IT CANNOT BE IMPORTED. The firmware
# threshold is a compile-time YAML substitution baked into the ESP32 image
# (`max_age_s: "30"`, master/goodwe-master-stage4-failsafe.yaml), so nothing at
# runtime can ask the board what value it was built with. This number is a copy,
# and a copy of a constant in another repo is a thing that goes stale.
#
# What makes that acceptable here: the copy can only ever be WRONG IN THE SAFE
# DIRECTION for the check below. If the firmware's veto is raised above 30, this
# refuses some configs that would in fact have worked - annoying, visible
# immediately, and fixed by editing one line. It cannot start accepting a config
# the firmware vetoes unless the firmware's number goes DOWN, which would be a
# tightening nobody does silently.
#
# ⚠️ TEL-06 IS EDITING `ingest_stale` DIRECTLY. If that ticket changes what the
# veto MEANS - e.g. thresholding arrival rather than the sensor's value - this
# constant's justification has to be re-read, not just its number. Do not assume
# a matching integer means a matching rule.
FIRMWARE_INGEST_VETO_S = 30.0
# ⚠️ The complete set of option keys through which this add-on can reach an
# actuator. specs §1.5 makes "any configuration in which two writers can reach
# one actuator" a non-goal, and the way that non-goal is ENFORCED here is by
@@ -117,6 +169,21 @@ def validate_startup_config(opts: dict, dev_min=None, dev_max=None) -> list[str]
max_w = _number(opts, "max_w", 2000.0)
if max_w is None:
problems.append(f"max_w {opts.get('max_w')!r} is not a number")
# ⚠️ config.yaml's int(100,5000) already blocks this on a real install, so
# the check is not for the Supervisor path - it is because
# validate_startup_config() is now also sim/inject.py's entry point and can
# be handed any dict at all. A max_w of 0 or below inverts the arbiter's
# `supervised` bounds (lo=-max_w becomes the HIGHER number), and a limit
# claim whose lo exceeds its hi is exactly the contradiction the arbiter
# resolves to 0 W - i.e. it would look like a safety trip rather than the
# nonsense config it is.
elif max_w <= 0:
problems.append(
f"max_w is {max_w:.0f} W and must be positive - it is a magnitude, "
"not a signed setpoint. At or below zero the arbiter's supervised "
f"limit becomes lo={-max_w:.0f} / hi={max_w:.0f}, which is a "
"contradiction it resolves to 0 W, so the controller would look "
"like it was tripping rather than misconfigured.")
elif dev_max is not None and max_w > dev_max:
problems.append(
f"max_w is {max_w:.0f} W but {opts.get('setpoint_entity') or 'the setpoint device'} accepts at "
@@ -144,6 +211,33 @@ def validate_startup_config(opts: dict, dev_min=None, dev_max=None) -> list[str]
else:
problems.extend(validate_meter_options(opts, int(phases), max_age_s))
# --- 4. the staleness window the FIRMWARE will actually enforce -----------
# ⚠️ Only when P1 ingestion is on, and that is a real scope limit rather than
# caution: meter_max_age_s is read by nothing but P1Ingest, and the veto it
# collides with keys off `p1_age_s.has_state()`, which is only ever published
# when ingestion is running (see Controller.publish()). With meter_source off
# there is no sensor, the veto is inert, and the number governs nothing.
#
# Strictly greater, not >=: the firmware trips at `>= 30` and P1Ingest goes
# stale at `> max_age_s`, so 30 against 30 has the firmware fractionally
# stricter by one sample. That is the shipped default and the tested pair.
# BELOW 30 is fine and deliberately not refused - the add-on then gives up
# first, which is fail-safe and visible on its own status page. Only ABOVE is
# the silent case, where the add-on keeps commanding into a reading the board
# has already rejected.
if (is_enabled(opts) and max_age_s is not None
and max_age_s > FIRMWARE_INGEST_VETO_S):
problems.append(
f"meter_max_age_s is {max_age_s:.0f} s but the ESP32 firmware vetoes "
f"any P1 sample at {FIRMWARE_INGEST_VETO_S:.0f} s and forces the "
"layer-1 failsafe - THE FIRMWARE WINS, and it wins silently. This "
f"add-on would treat a {max_age_s - 1:.0f} s reading as fresh and "
"keep commanding, while the inverter sat at 0 W with a healthy-"
"looking meter on the status page. Lower meter_max_age_s to "
f"{FIRMWARE_INGEST_VETO_S:.0f} s or less (30 s is the tested value), "
"or rebuild the firmware with a matching max_age_s and update "
"validate.FIRMWARE_INGEST_VETO_S.")
# --- warnings: real, but not worth refusing over -------------------------
integ = opts.get("integrator_max_w")
integ_w = None if not integ else _number(opts, "integrator_max_w", None)