TEST-21
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
616b62d3e9 |
SAFETY-07: cap the loop before it sets the month's billed capacity peak
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m7s
TARIFF-01 measured the quarter and said the consumer would be this card. It is
one new module, app/peakguard.py, and one new claim.
THE MECHANISM. Every cycle the guard projects the open 900 s block to its
end-of-interval average - from P1 telegrams only, never from the command - and
compares it to a ceiling. Over the ceiling it files ONE arbiter claim: a lower
bound on the setpoint at P_PEAK. That single shape is both behaviours 10.1 asks
for, a hard clamp on charging and pre-emptive discharge, and it cannot cap
discharge or export, because a floor cannot. 9.1's asymmetry becomes a property
of the object instead of a rule to remember.
excess = 900 x (projected - ceiling) / seconds remaining
floor = MEASURED battery power + excess
The 900/remaining gain is 1.0 at the top of the quarter and grows, so the guard
is gentlest where its projection rests on the least evidence. The floor is sized
from delivered battery power, not the standing command: a floor built on intent
re-adds its own unmet ask every cycle and winds to the rail whenever the inverter
fails to follow, and test_peakguard.py part 1 shows the two diverging.
IT TRIPS, AND THE CAPTURES DECIDED THAT. On the healthy reference day it engages
on zero of 95 quarters. The action is level-triggered, unlatched and re-derived
every cycle, so a false engagement costs one cycle of discharge rather than a
parked battery - the cost SAFETY-18 could not bound and this one can. Replayed on
2026-08-20 the billed quarter goes from 5029.8 W, above the inverter's own 5000 W
rating, to 3485 W, under the soft limit and without saturating. Quarters under
the limit across both committed days: 189/190 -> 190/190. Two days is not thirty
and AC 3 remains TARIFF-01's open item.
BLINDNESS IS CHECKED BEFORE THE PROJECTION IS GRADED, and it is a different
action. A fresh averager projects a confident 0 W, which is under every ceiling
there is; a meter gap longer than meter_max_age_s makes the projection read LOW;
a frozen meter reading export projects 0 W at full coverage. All three become a
floor of 0 W - no importing while the billed quantity is unobservable - which is
one-directional and cannot cost pack energy. That is the backstop SAFETY-18 could
not be: its alarm arrives at 300 s of a 900 s quarter and commands nothing. The
frozen term is freeze.looks_frozen() itself, on this cycle's standing command.
THE CEILING IS peak_cap_w, RAISED ONLY BY AN OBSERVED READING. NO_RECORD and
NOT_OBSERVED both leave it at the cap, so an unreadable peak store makes the
guard stricter and never looser. The gate is the reading's STATE, not whether a
number happens to be attached: today a `peak_w is not None` test behaves
identically, and depending on that coincidence is how a future last-known-peak
field would raise the ceiling off a read that failed. headroom_w() is
deliberately not consumed - cap minus peak turns a zero peak into FULL freedom.
TWO DEFECTS FOUND BUILDING IT, both in the interaction rather than the
arithmetic, and both caught by running the thing rather than by reading it:
* A LIMIT does not out-vote another LIMIT. arbiter.resolve() applies every
limit at or above the winner's priority and takes the most restrictive, so
the peak floor (lo >= 0) and the maintenance charge-only shaping (hi <= 0)
resolved to a CONTRADICTION and 0 W - the battery parked in the exact quarter
it should shave. Fixed by suppression, not priority: main.py drops the
maintenance shaping while the guard is engaged, which is what that branch
already did for the optional peak_forecast_entity - a key empty on a default
install, so until now the suspension could not fire on the site that needed
it.
* Thresholding `excess > 0` released the claim the instant it began working,
producing seventeen engage/release cycles in one 900 s quarter and leaving
that quarter 49 W over the limit it had spent fifteen minutes holding. That
is 10.2's oscillation. The threshold is now the floor itself, which is the
same arithmetic read as a level rather than as a switch.
PeakTracker.project() no longer reads a private name with a default.
getattr(averager, "_last_net", 0.0) failed quiet AND disarming - a rename credits
0 W held, the projection reads low, the money guard does not engage.
QuarterAverager.held_net_w is a documented public property now, read without a
default, and Projection carries it. TEST-13 item 4.
NO NEW OPTION AND NO FOURTH DEFAULTS SITE. The ceiling is peak_cap_w, the
coverage threshold is meter_max_age_s, the freeze predicate is meter_freeze_s,
and the achievable discharge comes from max_w and the device rating. config.yaml
and validate.py are untouched; 14's capacity_peak_limit_kw stays declined. On
meter_source: off there are no telegrams, so the guard does not run at all and
the status page says NOT COVERED - running it there blinded it permanently and
stopped every legacy install from charging, which is what the first cut did until
test_clamp.py's export case caught it.
test_peakguard.py: eight parts, all figures derived from the shipped config.yaml
and the committed captures. Part 8 runs seven one-line defeats of the guard and
reports which check bites; six do, and the seventh is reported as NOT caught,
because max(cap, peak) makes a zero peak the strictest ceiling there is and there
is nothing left to catch.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
f4914a174a |
TARIFF-01: measure the month's billed peak, and make it survive a restart
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 2m38s
The 15-minute block average was already built and unwired. p1.QuarterAverager computes clock-aligned 900 s blocks, time-weighted over irregular telegram spacing, offtake-only and per-phase; P1Ingest.blocks was a 96-entry list in memory that a restart erased. So this is the persistence and the monthly reduction, not a second accumulator - a second one would be a second source of truth for the exact quantity the money depends on. BLOCKS, NOT A SLIDING WINDOW. The card says "rolling"; 9.1 bills "the highest 15-minute average offtake" and states its own worked case per QUARTER - one 4998 W quarter moving a monthly peak from 4832 to 5013 W. A trailing window reports a peak the meter never bills, and reports it HIGH: a burst straddling :15 fills the window completely while contributing to two block averages at partial weight. DELIVERED, NOT INTENDED. tariff.py only ever sees P1Sample - the meter's own reading - and never a setpoint. SAFETY-20's open question does not arise for a capacity tariff: the utility integrates the current that flowed. AN UNREADABLE STORE IS NOT A ZERO PEAK. peak() answers OBSERVED / NO_RECORD / NOT_OBSERVED with peak_w None unless observed, which is riglock.holder()'s fix applied to something that spends money. A peak read as 0 W hands SAFETY-07 maximum headroom and disarms the guard at the moment its own storage breaks. Restart mid-block resumes the accumulator through a new snapshot()/restore() pair, checkpointed every 15 s and cleared in the same breath as a block close. The held sample keeps its ORIGINAL timestamp, so an outage is integrated under the same max_hold_s rule a running process would apply. quarter_start is the primary key and a re-bank may only ever RAISE a figure. Calendar months are LOCAL: a quarter starting 22:15 UTC on 31 August bills in September. No new option (the limit is the existing peak_cap_w), so config.yaml and validate.py are untouched and CFG-03 is not widened. No second peak entity: peak_forecast_entity stays the input to maintenance_charge_floor(), because repointing that consumer changes what moves energy and belongs to SAFETY-07. AC 3 is NOT met. It asks for 30 days of replay; two days of this house's real meter exist and are committed here. test_tariff.py part 9 replays them, reports the percentage next to the sample size in days, and asserts nothing about 95 %. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |