admin/goodwe-addon
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
190 Commits 209 Branches 19 Tags
024a4f58ddfe6aac7b972937eeed24ec50a7a33b
Commit Graph
4 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5 8123e261ce OPT-09: the weights parameter nothing ever passed, and what it cannot do
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m19s
Details 
`allocator.plan()` has taken a `weights` argument since ALLOC-01 and NOTHING
had ever passed one - main.py called `resolve()` without it and the arbiter
defaulted it to 1.0 per unit - so the site target was split 50/50 regardless
of what either pack could do. Two things now feed it, and they are different
kinds of thing:

  * a `pack` UNIT claim at P_SAFETY that CLOSES a unit's envelope at its own
    `bms_soc_floor` or at 100 % - a PERMISSION, obeyed absolutely, so an empty
    pack is not asked to discharge and its share goes to the sibling;
  * SoC-aware weights by ENERGY headroom in kWh - a PREFERENCE, which
    `_fill()`'s last-resort pass will override the moment the sibling saturates.

Measured (test_packshare.py part 8): at a load one pack cannot cover, the
weighted arm and the shipped arm command the IDENTICAL watts into an empty pack
and deliver the IDENTICAL watts. Only the envelope stops the ask, and what it
buys is not delivery - it is a reported `unmet_w` where the record used to read
impeccable. Weights are a comfort choice for STABILITY and NOT for DELIVERY.

Also: an optional per-entry `capacity_kwh` (schema change, all-or-nothing across
the roster, rule 9 refuses a partial one); per-pack arbitrage sizing, with the
sell side's no-op stated rather than hidden; and a 0 W trade refused by name,
because a 0 W arbitrage claim is a park order that outranks the loop.

SAFETY-42 and this card meet at one hazard from opposite sides - OPT-09 stops
the site ASKING a pack whose SoC says it cannot deliver, SAFETY-42 alarms when a
pack that said it could does not - and its end-to-end fixture moved as a result.
Its finding is unchanged and is now stated on the two quantities its rejected
discriminator actually reads.

Not filed at all at a roster of one: at N=1 every source routes to the site, so
the interval would bound the SITE TARGET, and SAFETY-25's decided Option A
stands untouched on the live install.

⚠️ INVERTER B DOES NOT EXIST. Its 4600 W / 20.48 kWh / 10 % are FROM DATASHEET
AND SERIAL, and `sim/plantsim.py`'s INVERTER_B is inverter A copied
(`measured=False`), so every two-inverter figure here is arithmetic or two
copies of A. No hardware was touched.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
 2026-09-06 21:38:40 +02:00
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5 706e625d99 SAFETY-42: a unit that stops delivering, and the discriminator the card asked for does not exist 
A unit standing at a non-zero share and producing nothing is seen by NOTHING.
SAFETY-30's per-unit sign gate needs OPPOSITION on both sides of 250 W and a
unit at 0 W is not opposing, it is ABSENT. The site sum still agrees with the
meter in direction. Circulating power is exactly zero when one unit does
nothing. The only trace left is `reason == "saturated-freeze"`, which
clamp.py:93-96 documents as the alarm an operator learns to ignore. It is
HW-01's shape, which ran 6 h 25 m with all three layers spectators.

⚠️ THE CARD'S OWN DISCRIMINATOR WAS BUILT FIRST AND FALSIFIED, AND THAT IS THE
MAIN CONTENT. SAFETY-42 asks for "saturation persisting past N while
|grid error| > X, both derived". Run on the two-master rig it fails in BOTH
directions, and no (N, X) fixes either:

  FALSE POSITIVE  `plantsim.Plant.limit()` returns 0 W for a discharge command
      into a pack at its own floor, and a wedged unit produces 0 W too. Load
      2000 W, equal weights, 2000 W per-unit cap, 120 cycles: THE TWO ARMS ARE
      IDENTICAL ON ALL 120 in grid, site target, every share and every measured
      watt. Both saturated-freeze on 116 of them, both hold |grid error| over
      300 W on all 120 and settle at 1200 W, both read circulating 0.0 W. The
      predicate's inputs do not differ, so no threshold on them can differ. And
      "a cold pack at its floor must not alarm" is the card's own AC 2.

  FALSE NEGATIVE  the standing grid error is what a HEALTHY SIBLING ERASES.
      Load 800 W, same config, B wedged: over the last 30 of 200 cycles the loop
      is frozen on 30 of 30 while the worst |grid error| is 30 W, with B standing
      at +770 W and delivering 0 W. Any X above 30 W is silent for the whole run
      on the exact fault the card describes.

WHAT REPLACES IT. Per unit, for a discharge share, `share - measured`; readable
because of a reduction that only exists at N>=2:

    a unit is named while it is short by more than `saturation_w` with NO
    ACCOUNT for it, and the units in that state are a PROPER SUBSET of the units
    asked to discharge.

THE ACCOUNT keeps the cold pack out and is the only thing that can: the two
cases are identical in the power domain, so the discriminator has to be a
non-power fact, and there is exactly one - the pack's own SoC against its own
`bms_soc_floor`, asked through `peakguard.discharge_permitted()` rather than
transcribed. ⚠️ `bms_soc_floor` ALONE, not `pack_floor_pct()`'s conjunction with
`peak_soc_floor`: that floor bounds a money-saving discharge only and using it
would explain away a wedged unit anywhere between the two.

THE PROPER SUBSET keeps a whole-site cause out - a derate this add-on cannot see
hits every unit; one box that stopped listening does not - and it is what makes
this INERT AT N=1, by algebra rather than by a roster guard.

IT REPORTS. IT DOES NOT ACT, and the strongest argument is for acting. Dropping
the wedged unit from `live` genuinely recovers a site the shipped path does not:
at load 1500 W, kept in the split the site settles at 800 W with a 700 W error
and NEVER comes inside 100 W in 150 cycles (the freeze pins the target, so the
sibling's SHARE never grows); dropped, it delivers 1500 W from cycle 14. What
refuses it is that the only re-allocation this add-on can express is
all-or-nothing: a unit derated to 50 % is short by more than saturation_w with
nothing to explain it, so this detector names it too, and at load 3000 W
dropping it leaves the site delivering 2000 W against 2400 W kept - 400 W WORSE.
A partial re-allocation is what would make acting safe and the allocator cannot
express it. That is a card.

control.py is NOT MODIFIED. The freeze shapes the loop; this reports on it.

NUMBERS, MEASURED. The watts side is `Tuning.saturation_w`, read at runtime, so
there is no fourth CFG-03 copy and it cannot drift from the number the control
law itself calls "not following". `delivery_hold_s: 185` comes off 2640
closed-loop two-inverter runs in which nothing is faulty (6 gains x 5 slews over
the whole schema range, across load reversals, a flapping load and ASYMMETRIC
SPLITS - a family SAFETY-30's campaign did not have and the one that dominates
here) plus 1890 runs at a roster of ONE as the control:

    threshold   reversals   flapping   weighted   N=1 control
     * 500 W      20.0 s      0.0 s      30.0 s      0.0 s

The N=1 column is 0.0 s at EVERY threshold in all 1890 runs, and the flapping
column - the family that defeated SAFETY-30's site window - is zero too, because
a common stimulus makes both units short at once and the subset stops being
proper. ⚠️ The curve is NOT monotone (55.0 s at 250 W against 40.0 s at 100 W):
lowering the threshold can turn a proper subset into the whole roster and BREAK
the run.

⚠️ THE MARGIN IS MEASURED, NOT FELT, BECAUSE INVERTER B DOES NOT PHYSICALLY
EXIST. `plantsim.INVERTER_B` is A COPIED, `measured=False`, so every two-inverter
figure above is two copies of A. Sweeping a different second unit: the worst
legitimate episode is insensitive to B's RAMP (30.0 s at half A's) and scales
with its LAG - 45.0 s at twice A's measured 10 s, 90.0 s at four times it.
185 s is 6.2x the measured worst, 2.06x the four-times-slower case, 6.2x
LINK_STALE_S and 4.9x inside the 900 s quarter. Deliberately not 180, which is
SAFETY-02's site hold.

SAFETY-34. `unit/<name>/delivery_tripped` in the store, one notification id per
unit, re-raised on the first cycle of every process, cleared by the Start press.
No flat mirror: a rollback lands on a version that drives one actuator, where
this check is inert.

⚠️ SCHEMA CHANGE - `delivery_hold_s` joins options: and schema:, so this needs a
version bump before it ships. Additive and defaulted, so an existing options blob
stays valid.

STATED GAPS: charge shares are not graded (no configured charge ceiling exists,
so a constant-voltage taper cannot be explained and arming it would fire on every
maintenance charge); every unit wedged at once is not caught (the subset is not
proper and no instrument here separates that from a plant that cannot).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
 2026-09-06 19:25:45 +02:00
adminandClaude Opus 5 5d7e275df4 SAFETY-39: slew_w is a ratio to the rail, and gain is what is still wrong
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 5m16s
Details 
`slew_w: 1000` was derived on 2026-08-22 against a clamp of 1500 W, where
"capping how far the loop can jump ahead of the inverter" was true because the
rail itself bounded the excursion. The live install went to max_w 5000 and the
constant did not move, so the loop crosses its whole output range in 10 s
against a plant NOTES.md §5.10 measured at ~18 s. Measured on the owner's system
2026-09-05 11:43-11:46: a 3.4 kW export drove the setpoint 380 -> 5000 W in five
2 s ticks, the battery to -5154 W past a 5000 VA rating, and the grid from
3.4 kW of EXPORT to 2.8 kW of IMPORT. Nothing was broken; the rail moved.

REPRODUCED FIRST, and one half of it is not reproducible at all. On
plantsim.Plant and on an independent in-repo model: the setpoint stepping a full
1000 W per tick to the rail (48 of 51 export steps), and the meter crossing from
export into import. The -5154 W figure is NOT reproducible in either model,
because both clamp the plant at its rating - so the card's AC "battery no longer
exceeds max_w in simulation" is unfalsifiable and was rewritten rather than met.

THE DELIVERABLE IS THE RELATIONSHIP.
  SLEW_RAIL_FRAC = LOOP_TICK_S / PLANT_SETTLE_S = 2 s / 18 s = 1/9
  slew_w = 0 now means FOLLOW THE RAIL - SLEW_RAIL_FRAC * max_w - exactly as
  integrator_max_w = 0 already means follow max_w. It is the shipped default:
  222 W at max_w 2000, 556 W at 5000, 1067 W at a ~9600 W two-inverter site.
  validate.py rule 10 refuses an explicit value faster than that, graded against
  sum(unit_caps(opts)) - the roster sum, i.e. Controller.site_max_w - so a
  second inverter moves the bound with no operator action.

VERIFIED BY BREAKING IT: restoring slew_w 1000 at max_w 5000 is refused, and the
refusal names the rail, the crossing time, the measurement and what to do.
Equality, one watt of slack, the live interim 400 and slew_w 0 at every rating
all still start.

GAIN IS THE CONSTANT THAT IS STILL WRONG, and it is NOT changed here. Over 51
export steps the over-absorption is FLAT in slew (958 W at 1000, 1081 W at 250)
and monotone in gain (987 W at 0.6, 876 at 0.3, 435 at 0.2): slew_w bounds the
OUTPUT, while the integrator moves gain*error per cycle and reaches a 5000 W
rail in under three ticks whatever the slew is. Two control-law constants moving
in one release on a running house makes the next measurement uninterpretable.

⚠️ N=2: the site rail becomes sum(max_w) ~ 9600 W (inverter B FROM DATASHEET AND
SERIAL, not measured, and sim/plantsim.py's INVERTER_B is A copied), and the
enforced ratio produces 1067 W there automatically. But a growing rail LOOSENS
this bound, and the >= 900 W symptom goes stale at N=2 the same way the constant
did - both stated in the record rather than left to be discovered.

Nothing reached the inverter. The live install still runs the interim slew_w 400
applied by hand on 2026-09-05, which rule 10 accepts unchanged.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
 2026-09-06 01:10:15 +02:00
Claude Opus 5 fef6ef20a4 UX-01: translate the add-on config, and order it by task
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 5m1s
Details 
The add-on had NO translations/ directory, so Home Assistant fell back to
rendering the raw option KEYS. An operator opening Configuration read
`unit_sign_disagree_w`, `saturation_cycles`, `integrator_max_w` - seventy of
them, in file order, with no description and no way to tell a constant derived
from 1890 closed-loop test runs from their own inverter's rating.

⚠️ PRESENTATION ONLY. Not one default, not one schema range and not one line of
behaviour moved. The 175 non-comment lines of config.yaml are byte-identical to
release/1.0's, reordered; the only comment lines that changed are the group
banners and five sentences whose "above"/"below" the reorder made false.

* translations/en.yaml and translations/nl.yaml: a name and a description for
  all 70 options and all 7 per-entry keys of the `inverters:` repeatable
  section. The Dutch is written for a Flemish homeowner - afname/injectie,
  kwartierpiek, capaciteitstarief - not transliterated from the English.
* ⭐ Every derived constant says WHERE IT CAME FROM and whether to touch it.
  `unit_sign_disagree_s` cites its 1890 closed-loop runs (SAFETY-30);
  `circulation_w` its 924 runs and the measured 400 W knee (SAFETY-31);
  `meter_freeze_s` its 2399 s capture (SAFETY-18); `bms_soc_floor` register
  0x0560. The two numbers that are the operator's - max_w and peak_cap_w - say
  "THIS IS YOUR NUMBER". `cycle_cost_threshold_eur`, which is neither, says it
  is an open product question (OPT-08).
* config.yaml reordered into task order in BOTH halves, comments carried with
  their keys: hardware -> meter -> ratings and limits -> tariff -> maintenance
  -> safety -> advanced.
  ⚠️ test_inverter.py:1788's trap is PRESERVED: the nested per-entry `max_w:`
  still precedes the flat one under `schema:`, and `inverters: []` still ships
  in the `options:` half. Moving the nested block below the flat one is a 1-byte
  edit; it was run and goes red in test_inverter.py and test_translations.py.
* tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py section F MEASURES the result against
  ghcr.io/home-assistant/amd64-hassio-supervisor:2026.08.0 - Supervisor's own
  _read_app_translations(), its own UiOptions, and the frontend's label
  resolution transcribed from the shipped bundle - and prints every rendered row
  in both languages. `all cases passed`, exit 0.
* ⚠️ ONE MEASURED NEGATIVE RESULT, NOT GLOSSED: the per-entry keys inside the
  `inverters:` section still render RAW on frontend 20250925.1, because a
  list-of-objects goes to ha-selector-object and the converter sets no `label`
  and no `translation_key`. The `fields:` translations are shipped and validated
  - that is Supervisor's own shape for this - but this card does not claim they
  reach the screen. The `inverters` label and description do.
* test_translations.py: a translation naming a non-existent option, or an option
  with no translation, fails CI - both directions, both languages, top level and
  per entry. Mutation-tested BOTH WAYS: eleven in-process mutations each
  required to NAME the key they broke, plus a negative control; six more run on
  disk through the purge-and-re-read protocol. Two of the eleven are the ones
  that cost the WHOLE FILE rather than one label - an unrecognised top-level
  block, and a `network:` value that is not a string. Supervisor drops a file
  that fails SCHEMA_APP_TRANSLATIONS with only a log warning, so those silently
  return the entire tab to raw keys; neither is reachable through the
  `configuration:` coverage, which is why they were hunted for and closed.
* tools/translations_lint.py is the hand parser CI needs (no PyYAML in the
  add-on image) and the probe grades it, key by key and string by string,
  against Supervisor's own loader. It is strict and RAISES rather than skipping;
  nine malformed shapes prove it.

Full 20-file suite green (19 existing + test_translations.py).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
 2026-09-05 12:02:56 +02:00