4482cd8201ef5cfab3ffbe8154ef5adbbeaec865
18
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
  adminandClaude Opus 5
|
26c5ee8adc |
TEL-07: a second MQTT device for inverter B, and A keeps the one it has
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m58s
MQTT discovery announced ONE device and hung every entity off one unique_id prefix, so at two inverters B's per-unit telemetry had nowhere to go. It has somewhere now, and not one entity that already exists moved. ⚠️ THE ASYMMETRY IS DELIBERATE. The first roster entry's per-unit rows are announced on THE DEVICE IT ALREADY HAS; every later entry gets its own device, via_device the controller. "One device per inverter" is tidier and is the change that renames every entity on the live install - and because HA keeps the id it composed at FIRST discovery, a rename produces a NEW entity beside a DEAD one: the history stays behind and every dashboard, template and automation naming it goes on pointing at a sensor that quietly stopped updating, including the three live watchdog automations. The composed ids come out symmetric anyway (sensor.goodwe_inverter_a_battery_power / ..._inverter_b_...), so the tidy design's only real benefit is bought here without its cost. * four per-unit rows - setpoint, battery power, SoC, SAFETY-02 sign latch - announced only from a roster of two. At N=1 nothing is announced and nothing is published: no second device, no renamed entity, no added topic. * grid and p1_sample_age_s stay SITE-scoped and are announced ONCE, at every roster length 1-6. One P1, one grid connection, and p1_sample_age_s is a watchdog input - a second copy is a second answer to "is the meter fresh?". * inverter.roster_names() is the one answer to what the units are called, read by build_roster() and by the publisher, which must know the roster before a Controller exists because announcing happens on the CONNACK. * DECISIONS/TEL-07-second-mqtt-device.md records the two designs side by side. VERIFIED BY DIFFING THE ANNOUNCED PAYLOADS, not by reading the code. The release/1.0 baseline in test_mqtt.py was generated by running that commit's module, not transcribed. Roster of one: 9 topics, 0 missing, 0 changed, 0 added. Roster of two: 0 missing, 0 changed, 8 added. MEASURED, NOT ASSERTED. Sixteen mutations through tools/mutation_run.sh; twelve are in the file as a running table, each named with the property it breaks. Three of those properties exist because the table found their ABSENCE - dropping the unit from the state topic, moving `grid` into the per-unit set, and `units=()` in main()'s publisher call were all GREEN on the first run, as was a roster fallback naming two nameless entries `inverter-a`. Part 9 enumerates what the file still cannot see, with sizes. ⚠️ INVERTER B DOES NOT PHYSICALLY EXIST (~2026-09-12). Every roster of two here is SIMULATED, from the datasheet and serial in NOTES.md §1.1b. Nothing about B has been measured and no entity described here has been seen on a broker. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU |
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
19decf433f |
SAFETY-32 round 5: stop closing sites, build an instrument that finds its own scope
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m59s
Rounds 2, 3 and 4 each closed exactly the survivor they were handed and each time
the reviewer found the same shape one step over: the reduction, the call site, the
sibling argument, and now the sibling MODULE. Round 4's enumeration stopped at the
`Controller` class boundary; round 5's four blockers were reductions in validate.py,
over a list DERIVED from the roster three calls away from it. Closing four more sites
by hand would have produced a fifth rejection, so this round widens the instrument
instead and lets it enumerate.
⚠️ THE BLOCKERS ARE NOT EQUIVALENT MUTANTS - a safety refusal disappears, verified by
calling the shipped validator both ways on the real tree:
roster max_w 5000 (inverter-a) beside 2000 (inverter-b), sign_disagree_w 3000
clean -> 1 problem, "...max_w (inverter-b) is 2000 W, so the
SAFETY-02 sign-disagreement watchdog can never fire"
min(caps[:1]) +4 B -> 0 problems. The site STARTS.
caps_ix[:1] +4 B -> 0 problems.
the SAME roster with the small cap FIRST (2000, 5000)
clean -> 1 problem, naming inverter-a
min(caps[-1:]) +5 B -> 0 problems.
⚠️ AND THE ONE-ROSTER FIXTURE COULD NOT HAVE SEEN THAT. On [5000, 2000] the `[-1:]`
mutant still refuses, because last IS min there. A fixture of N members cannot separate
two reductions that agree on N members - which is why the behavioural half below is a
SET and not a roster.
THE INSTRUMENT (test_peakguard.py part 12j, widened past `Controller`)
Every `.py` under app/ is read off disk and parsed - NO MODULE IS NAMED IN THE CHECK -
and the roster is found by transitive closure from ONE seed, the `inverters` option key:
through returns, through lists ACCUMULATED in a loop over a roster (which is exactly
what `caps`, `roster` and `problems` are, and what round 4's rule could not express),
through attributes and properties, and THROUGH CALL ARGUMENTS, which is how it walks
into peakguard, arbiter, allocator, circulation, maintenance and store without being
told they exist. A slice of a roster stays a roster so a mutation cannot cut the taint;
an index is one unit and does not.
183 roster reductions across 9 modules, out of 23 files parsed:
main 96, allocator 24, validate 19, arbiter 14, circulation 10, maintenance 10,
peakguard 4, inverter 3, store 3. 14 modules reduce over no roster at all.
⚠️ THE HAND-WRITTEN MODULE LIST WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. It named
watchdog.py, which reduces over no roster at all (SAFETY-30's sign watchdogs are
strictly per-unit), and omitted maintenance.py and store.py, which both do. A vacuous
claim about one module and no claim at all about two others - which is the argument for
computing the scope, made with data.
The pin rediscovers ALL FOUR blockers without being told where to look, and finds a
FIFTH beside them (validate.py:783, rule 5's own message) that no review round named.
Its counterfactual runs at two depths: every enumerated site's expression mutated with
each of the four cuts this card has been defeated by (183 x 4 = 732 spellings, all
reported), and `[:1]` written into app/validate.py at each blocker position with the
WHOLE analysis re-run over the mutated source.
THE SWEEP, AND THE NUMBER THAT MUST NOT BE QUOTED ALONE
All 183 sites mutated to `[:1]`, +4 B each, against the full 19-file suite in
goodwe-addon-ci (:ro, -B, fresh rsync per mutant, 0 .pyc before and after - a read-only
mount cannot write one): 183/183 RED. ⚠️ That is TAUTOLOGICAL on its own, because the
pin makes every slice red. So the 51 whose first red was test_peakguard.py were re-run
with the pin NEUTRALISED:
145 of 183 a behavioural fixture separates the site from a slice of itself
38 of 183 ONLY the structural claim. Behaviourally UNGRADED.
All 38 are listed by site with what a `[:1]` there would cost, in the DECISIONS record
and in part 12j itself: 15 are rows and counts on the operator's page, 3 are
`len(targets)` arithmetic beside a write path that IS graded, 6 are allocator internals
ALLOC-01 reaches but not with enough units to separate. NONE of the 38 is closed
behaviourally by this card and none is counted as covered.
THE BEHAVIOURAL HALF, because a shape pin grades an identity and never a meaning
test_validate.py grows a ROSTER SET for the three rules that reduce over
`unit_caps_indexed()`: widths 2, 3, 4, 5 with the one small cap at EVERY position,
14 rosters x 3 rules = 42 runs of the real validator, each asserting the refusal fires
AND names the unit the number came off. Beside it a COMPUTED family table of twelve
candidates - max, first, last, the mean, [:1], [-1:], [:2], [:3], [1:], [:-1], [::2] -
each compared against what the shipped validator actually answered on the same roster.
Only `min` agrees everywhere; a member no roster kills is printed as a NAMED SURVIVOR.
⚠️ A THIRD RULE WAS READING THE FLAT `max_w`, AND IT IS SAFETY-30's
Found by reading the three branches side by side, NOT by the pin - and said that way
because it is the shape of what the pin cannot see. `unit_sign_disagree_w` was graded
against `_number(opts, "max_w", 2000.0)`, three lines under a branch that had already
stopped doing that. Both directions were measured before the fix:
two 2000 W units + a leftover `max_w: 5000` + unit_sign_disagree_w 3000 -> 0 problems.
The site started, the status page said `armed`, and the per-inverter watchdog could
not trip on EITHER unit. Identical sentence to the blocker, one branch over.
two 5000 W units with NO flat key -> REFUSED against a 2000 W default the operator
never wrote, for a threshold both units can reach.
It takes the same `weakest` the branch above takes and names the same unit. At a roster
of one `unit_caps()` is `[max_w]`, so the shipped single-inverter refusal is the same
comparison, the same boundary and the same sentence.
MUTATION PROOF (each: bytecode purged and counted 0 before and 0 after, the edit
re-read FROM DISK with the new text present and the old absent, byte delta printed)
B1 validate min(caps) -> min(caps[:1]) +4 B RED test_validate.py
B2 validate min(caps) -> min(caps[-1:]) +5 B RED test_validate.py
B3 validate caps_ix -> caps_ix[:1] +4 B RED test_validate.py
B4 validate rule 6 min -> min(caps_ix[-1:]) +5 B RED test_validate.py
B5 validate rule 5 msg -> min(caps_ix[:1]) +4 B RED test_validate.py
B6 validate rule 5b msg -> min(caps_ix[-1:]) +5 B RED test_validate.py
B7 CONTROL: weakest -> max(0.0, weakest) +10 B GREEN, as intended
R3a peakguard max(floors) -> min(floors) 0 B RED test_peakguard.py
R3b peakguard max(floors) -> max(floors[-2:]) +5 B RED test_peakguard.py
R3c main call site packs -> self.packs[:2] +4 B RED test_peakguard.py
R4a main pack_floor_soc -> vals[:2] +4 B RED test_peakguard.py
R4b main pack_floor_soc -> vals[-2:] +5 B RED test_peakguard.py
R4c main pack_floor_soc -> vals[:3] +4 B RED test_peakguard.py
R4d main cycle() any(...) -> self.inverters[:1] +4 B RED test_watchdog.py
B1-B6 are caught by the BEHAVIOURAL set in test_validate.py, before the pin is reached.
B7 is a deliberate no-op control: `max(0.0, weakest)` is `weakest` for weakest > 0, and
it stays green, so the battery is not merely red for everything.
R3a is a ZERO-byte delta, so the shipped function was called both ways as well:
packs floors [15.0, 30.0, 20.0], peak_soc_floor 15
binding_soc_floor(...) = 30.0 the 0-byte mutant would answer 15.0 (+15.0 pp)
-> the site would discharge to 15 % while pack-b's own BMS cuts out at 30 %.
⚠️ PRODUCTION IS DEGENERATE ON THE FLOOR AXIS. SPIKE-04: pack A and pack B BOTH floor
at 10 %, so a differing floor exists ONLY in the fixtures. That is the argument for
keeping them, not for simplifying them - collapsing them deletes the only data in this
repository that can see the reduction at all. Restated in config.yaml's example, in the
probe and in the fixtures.
⚠️ INVERTER B DOES NOT PHYSICALLY EXIST (~2026-09-12). Every second-unit figure here -
4600 W FROM ITS DATASHEET, 15 % illustrative, the whole roster SET - is SIMULATED and
labelled. Only inverter A's 10 % is read off hardware.
REBASED onto
|
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
8beba0a3e7 |
SAFETY-32 round 4: the same family at the SIBLING ARGUMENT, and the family enumerated
Rounds 2 and 3 hardened the FLOOR axis - the max inside binding_soc_floor(), the roster handed to it, Controller.packs, pack_floor_pct()'s conjunction. peakguard.decide() is handed a SECOND reduction over the same roster beside it, soc=self.pack_floor_soc, and peakguard.py's own docstring names the two as a pair. Three rewrites of Controller.pack_floor_soc were green across all 19 files on |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
a4c95f83ce |
SAFETY-32 round 3: a fixture of N packs cannot separate reductions that agree on N
Both blockers were the recurring defect sitting inside the fix written to close it: a check whose TEXT claims more than its FIXTURE can observe. Both survived a green 19-file suite on |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
ffbabea8ce |
SAFETY-32 fix round: grade the reduction on packs whose floors DIFFER
AC 6 was not met for the reduction main.py actually hands decide(). The
reviewer removed the per-pack grading twice and the 19-file suite stayed green
both times. No shipped behaviour changes here - app/ is untouched. What changes
is what observes it.
WHY BOTH SURVIVED, and it is this repository's recurring defect landing on this
card's own Decision 2: under any rule-8-valid config every pack's
pack_floor_pct() equals peak_soc_floor, so `floors` is a list of IDENTICAL
numbers and max/min/first/last are four spellings of one answer. The only check
using a cut-out ABOVE the EMS floor - 12c's `_n1_deep` - ran on a roster of ONE,
where every reduction agrees. So no check ever evaluated binding_soc_floor() on
two packs whose floors differ. And the degeneracy is not a defence: this PR's own
argument ("unreachable is a claim about today's rule ordering, and
validate_startup_config() is also sim/inject.py's entry point") justifies writing
the reduction and equally obliges grading it.
* test_peakguard.py part 12c2 - NEW. binding_soc_floor() on a roster whose
per-pack floors ALL DIFFER: four SIMULATED cut-outs 30/25/40/35 %, each
strictly above peak_soc_floor, so max (40), min (25), first (30), last (35)
and the mean (32.5) are five different numbers and the extremes sit at
INTERIOR roster positions. Two packs structurally cannot separate those -
there max==last and min==first - and neither can three; four is the smallest
roster that can. Precondition is its own check (habit 1); the counterfactual
raises ONE pack - the last, neither extreme - past the old maximum and the
answer follows (habit 7); peak_soc_floor is then lifted above every cut-out
to grade the other side of the conjunction.
* test_peakguard.py part 12g - REWRITTEN as behaviour (habit 4). The old
assertion was `"self.packs" in <the unparsed call site>`, which `self.packs[:1]`
still satisfies. It now drives REAL Controller.cycle()s on a two-pack roster,
both packs at the same SoC, and reads PeakDecision.soc_floor - the argument,
echoed back by the shipped decide(). The cut-outs are the only thing varied,
and the SAME PAIR is carried in BOTH ORDERS.
* ⚠️ TWO MORE SURVIVORS, found by this round's own battery and recorded rather
than quietly repaired. (a) The first cut of 12g varied only pack B's cut-out,
so `self.packs[-1:]` (+5 bytes) agreed with the roster on both runs and stayed
green across all 19 files; the swapped pair closes it, and between the two
directions no single-position slice passes all three runs. (b)
binding_soc_floor()'s EMPTY-roster branch rewritten to `return None`
(-43 bytes) was green too - a defensive branch nothing in the suite reached.
Both directions of it are pinned now.
* wired_over_limit() gained a prepare(ctl) hook, inside its retry loop so every
attempt grades the same site.
* In-process mutation rows 22, 22b and 23 record all four survivors.
Nine further source mutations went through the harness on the fixed tree
(binding_soc_floor -> floors[0] / floors[-1], pack_floor_pct conjoining with
min, pack_permissions grading against packs[0], `any` -> `all` on the unknown
floor, Controller.packs reversed, decide(soc=) taking inverters[0].soc, and the
two survivors above). Seven were red on first run; the two survivors are now red
as well. Three of the nine have a ZERO byte delta and still went red, which is
the direction stale bytecode cannot fabricate - and the harness purged anyway.
MANDATORY PROOF, all in the CI image over a tree rsynced to a plain path and
bind-mounted :ro, bytecode entry count printed before and after the purge:
each of the four mutations now takes test_peakguard.py RED, and the unmutated
tree is 19/19 green (twice, plus test_peakguard.py five times in isolation -
card CI-06's flake did not reappear). The zero-byte one was proved to have RUN rather than
assumed: dis.get_instructions LOAD_GLOBALs were [float, pack_floor_pct, any,
min] and binding_soc_floor() returned 25.0 on the 12c2 roster where the shipped
code returns 40.0.
No measurement of inverter B appears anywhere. It does not physically exist.
Every second-pack and fourth-pack figure added here is SIMULATED and labelled at
its definition; only inverter A's 10 % is read off hardware. No hardware was
touched.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
f9e7fbf86d |
SAFETY-32: bms_soc_floor per pack, rule 8 per unit
`bms_soc_floor` describes A BATTERY, not a site. At two packs of different models the cut-outs differ, and one number for both graded the shallower pack against the deeper one's BMS - so a site with cut-outs of 10 % and 30 % under `peak_soc_floor: 20` STARTED, and the guard would command a forced discharge that pack B's BMS, not the operator's floor, is the thing that stops. That is rule 8's own failure mode, reached through rule 8. Scoped to the card's third bullet, per its PM PROOFREAD: the aggregate anti-windup (DEV-02) and per-instance `achievable_w` (CFG-04) were verified as already shipped and are untouched. * config.yaml: `bms_soc_floor: int(0,50)` REQUIRED per `inverters:` entry. Nothing is inherited; the flat key stays the single-inverter shape's own cut-out. A per-entry DEFAULT was declined - a default is one number for every pack, which is this card's defect - and the decision is recorded. * inverter.py: `Inverter.bms_soc_floor`; an entry that states none gets None, not a borrowed number and not 0.0 (the most permissive value the key has). * peakguard.py: `Pack`, `pack_floor_pct()`, `pack_permissions()`, `binding_soc_floor()`. `discharge_permitted()` is unchanged and is still the one place the question is answered. * validate.py: `unit_bms_floors_indexed()` carries the ROSTER index; rule 8 grades EVERY unit and NAMES the one it refuses. Graded with the offender SECOND and with the same two numbers in the other order. * main.py: `Controller.packs`; `decide(soc_floor=...)` is the per-pack reduction of the same option; the floor-limited notification names the pack that stopped the site. `pack_floor_soc` - the emptiest pack, and its None-on-missing behaviour - is untouched. * tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py: RE-RUN and repaired. The required key broke §C and left §D printing PASS on a refusal about a different key. §D is now an isolated counterfactual over an accepted merged baseline, one key varied, asserting the key name. `all cases passed` on 2026.08.0. Stated rather than hidden: under any config rule 8 accepts the per-pack FLOOR reduces to `peak_soc_floor` for every pack. The reduction is written for `unit_caps_indexed()`'s reason and graded on both sides - 1775 rule-8-valid pairs answer the option, the pair rule 8 refuses answers the cut-out. `peak_soc_floor` is still one number for the site, so the "deeper pack needlessly withheld" half is filed as an open question, not closed. Full 19-file suite green. Twelve source mutations through tools/mutation_run.sh: eleven red, one argued survivor. The battery also found `_flat_bms_floor()` defaulting in two places, each covering for the other. No measurement of inverter B appears anywhere: it does not exist yet. Every second-pack figure is simulated and labelled. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU |
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
905b6fd2b3 |
MAINT-05 fix round 2: the refusal has to survive the NEXT start, and both marker guards have to be visible
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 5m14s
REJECTED because the fix round's own load-bearing sentence was FALSE, and the
whole suite was blind to that. `_verify_moves()` produced the red the reviewer
reproduced - that half stood - but DECISIONS §2 claimed "`ok` gates the marker,
so a misdirected migration is not stamped and the next start runs it again ...
a re-run is recoverable". THE REFUSAL LASTED EXACTLY ONE START.
MEASURED, Controller level, ONE persisted store, roster ["garage","shed"], flat
last_completed 2026-08-07, call site still handing `inverter-a` on both starts:
construction 1: ok=False misdirected=4 moved=4 kept=0 marker=<absent>
construction 2: ok=True misdirected=0 moved=0 kept=4 marker=1
history parked under unit/inverter-a/...; marker stamped after ONE restart.
WHY. `_verify_moves()` graded only `rep.moved`. On start 2 the same wrong call
site finds the four keys already present, so rule 1 routes every one of them to
`rep.kept`, `rep.moved` is EMPTY, the roster loop iterates over nothing,
`misdirected` is empty and `ok` is True. Start 3 then takes the
`from_version >= MAINT_SCHEMA_VERSION` early return FOREVER - including after
the call site is fixed. Loud-and-recoverable became silent-and-permanent after
one restart: the exact state store.py's header says must never happen, reached
by the fix written to prevent it.
WHY THE CHECK MISSED IT - the recurring defect, this time INSIDE the remedy.
Part 9b's recovery check was `migrate_maint_keys(_m5, ROSTER[0], ROSTER)` - the
CORRECTED name. It measures recovery along the one path where the operator has
ALREADY fixed the bug. Nothing in the 19 files called `migrate_maint_keys()`
twice with the SAME WRONG `unit`. The check was true and passed for the wrong
reason.
WHAT CHANGED
1. app/store.py `_verify_moves()` grades `set(rep.moved) | set(rep.kept)`.
Sound by construction: every entry in both lists is a `unit_key(unit,
legacy)` built from the SAME `unit` argument, so grading `kept` grades the
same namespace decision `moved` does. A correct call site's `kept` entries
sit under a roster name and pass; a wrong one cannot launder its namespace by
having already written it. `migrate_unit_keys()` passes `roster=None` and
returns before the loop, so it is untouched.
2. test_maintenance.py part 9c - THE CHECK THAT WAS MISSING. Two starts, SAME
wrong unit, ONE store: the marker is still withheld on the second, the
refusal names the same roster, the flat history is still there to recover
from, and a third start with the CORRECTED name still gets a run (which a
stamped marker would have made impossible). Its PRECONDITION asserts the
SHAPE of the second report - `moved` empty, `kept` full - so it cannot
quietly revert to grading 9b's path. Counterfactual beside it: the same two
calls with the right name are accepted, then skipped as `already at schema`.
3. test_maintenance.py part 9d - THE OTHER GUARD ON THE SAME LINE, and a
survivor nothing in the repository could see. `if rep.ok:` is
`not lost and not misdirected`; every check that reached the marker did so on
a store whose `kept` was empty, so
if rep.ok: -> if rep.ok or rep.kept: (+12 B)
stamped the marker on a migration that LOST A MONTH OF HISTORY - defeating
the older, settled `lost` guard as well as the new one - and ALL 19 SUITES
WERE GREEN on it (measured at
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
65cddf35f1 |
MAINT-05 fix round: grade the migration against the ROSTER, not against the name it was handed
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m47s
REJECTED because a survivor undoes AC 5, and it survived for the recurring
reason: two fixture values that must be distinguishable were EQUAL.
THE SURVIVOR. app/main.py:282 mutated from `self.inverters[0].name` to `UNIT_A`
left the full 19-file suite green. `inverter.UNIT_A == "inverter-a"`, and every
two-pack fixture in test_maintenance.py named its first roster entry
"inverter-a" - so the two expressions were the same string in every check that
existed. main.py's own comment made the distinction load-bearing and nothing in
the repository could see whether that comment was true.
THE FAILURE IS REAL. `build_roster()` names a declared roster's entries from the
config and numbers a nameless one POSITIONALLY (`inverter-1`), so "inverter-a"
is not even the fallback. On ["garage","shed"] with a flat last_completed of
2026-08-07 the mutant migrates into unit/inverter-a/, pack 0 reads back None,
and both packs come up believing they have never been recalibrated.
AND IT FAILED SILENTLY, which was the worse half: `_verify_moves()` read back
the keys it had just WRITTEN, under the namespace it had just been HANDED, was
satisfied, and MAINT_SCHEMA_KEY was stamped - so the next start skipped the
migration too. A postcondition that reads back the namespace it was handed
cannot detect being handed the wrong one.
WHAT CHANGED
1. THE POSTCONDITION IS GRADED AGAINST THE ROSTER. `_verify_moves()` takes the
names the MACHINES read and reports a namespace that is not among them as
`misdirected` - a new, differently-named failure from `lost`:
* `lost` is "the store took the write and dropped it" - a storage fault,
with a harmless-default case (a dropped `last_completed: None` loses
nothing, because absent and never-recalibrated are the same statement);
* `misdirected` is "the store did exactly as it was told, by a caller that
was wrong". There is no harmless-default version of it - a write nobody
reads is not information whatever its value - so it fails `ok` alone.
`ok` gates the marker, so a misdirected migration is NOT stamped and the next
start re-runs it. Asymmetric on purpose: a re-run is recoverable (rule 1
makes it a no-op, rule 2 left the flat keys to recover from), a silent skip
is not. Part 9b MEASURES the recovery rather than asserting it.
2. `migrate_maint_keys()` TAKES THE ROSTER IN PLACE OF AN `n_units` COUNT. The
count was `len(self.inverters)` at the only call site, so the roster carries
it, and a count beside the names is a second opinion about how many packs
there are.
3. THE FIXTURES CAN NOW REACH THE FAILURE THEY NAME. Parts 9 and 11 run on
["garage","shed"], each behind a PRECONDITION check that the first name is
not UNIT_A - so an edit that makes them equal again goes red instead of
making the claims vacuous. Part 11's fixture date is relative to `now`, not
a literal, so "history preserved" and "history lost" cannot converge as the
file ages past `interval_days`.
MUTATION LEDGER - all red, purged tree, none at +0 B, full detail on the PR:
M1 main.py inverters[0].name -> UNIT_A -16 B 4 checks red
M2 store.py drop `roster=names` from _verify_moves -14 B 5 checks red
M3 store.py drop the misdirected.append -37 B 5 checks red
M4 store.py ok: drop `and not self.misdirected` -25 B 3 checks red
M5 fixture garage -> inverter-a (the trap itself) +4 B 5 checks red
M6 store.py parts[1] -> parts[-1] +1 B 1 check red
FOUND AND NOT FIXED - `migrate_unit_keys()` HAS THE SAME HOLE AND IT IS A LATCH.
It runs BEFORE `build_roster()` (each Inverter restores its latch in its
constructor), so it is handed the constant UNIT_A with no roster to grade
against. On a declared roster a pre-DEV-02 `sign_tripped: true` lands under
unit/inverter-a/sign_tripped, which no unit reads - and
`_grade_store_migration()`, whose whole job is to re-arm exactly this, is
DEFEATED BY THE KEY THE DEFECT WROTE: its "is anything namespaced latched" test
is satisfied by the misdirected value itself. Measured, with the flat-config
counterfactual, and pinned as a running check (test_maintenance.py part 13)
whose assertions state the WRONG behaviour on purpose. It wants its own card:
the remedy is in inverter.py and SAFETY-02's semantics, and a silent expansion
into a safety latch is how a rejected PR becomes a broken one.
Suite: 19/19 PASS, purged tree, bind-mounted :ro in goodwe-addon-ci.
No hardware was touched; every fixture here is SIMULATED and pack B's 3000 W
remains a marked hypothesis.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
1aef19e995 |
MAINT-05: one recalibration per pack, and only one pack moves power at a time
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m48s
§12's monthly cycle drains a pack to empty and refills it to true its coulomb
counter. There was exactly one `Maintenance` and one un-namespaced history, so
at two packs only the first was ever recalibrated - and nothing prevented the
cycle draining pack A while the loop charged pack B, which is two power-moving
phases on one grid connection pulling against each other.
* ONE `Maintenance` PER ROSTER ENTRY, each with its own schedule, phase and
history under `unit/<name>/...`. `store.migrate_maint_keys()` moves an
install's flat history into the first pack's namespace under
`migrate_unit_keys()`'s three rules - shared in code via `_move_flat_keys()`
and `_verify_moves()`, not restated - on its own marker, because unlike
DEV-02's it runs only where the roster has more than one pack. The flat keys
are kept LIVE as the rollback view.
* ONE MAINTENANCE SLOT PER SITE (`maintenance.arbitrate()`). At most one pack
in a power-moving phase - drain, charge AND hold. The holder is DERIVED from
the packs' own stored phases, never persisted, so a restart mid-drain
re-derives it. Several packs due in the same hour: the slot goes to the one
that has gone longest without a completed cycle; roster order breaks a
numeric tie and nothing else. Nothing preempts a cycle in flight.
* THE DEFERRED PACK IS NOT STARVED AND IS NOT A FAULT. A deferral does not
stamp `last_start_attempt` and does not move the phase, so neither the 12 h
drain nor the 36 h charge timeout is reachable by waiting.
* The claim is filed on the pack whose state machine produced it, and stays
SCOPE_UNIT - ARCH-01's rule.
* `validate.py` rule 6 grades `maintenance_charge_w` against the WEAKEST cap on
the roster now, as its own comment said it must once `maint_unit` stopped
being `inverters[0]`.
* At a roster of one nothing changes, and it is asserted: no new store key, the
migration does not run, the four cycle events are the shipped strings, the
banner is the bare phase.
* RECORDED NOT FIXED: a drain pins its pack while the loop's target is a site
claim, so below the pin the allocator refuses the split and the site parks at
0 W. Pre-existing at
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
ae21b71824 |
Merge release/1.0 into SAFETY-30
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m39s
CFG-04 (#45) merged first and moved the base. Two conflicts, both resolved as the union of the two sides: - app/main.py: an import-block collision. CFG-04 added validate_unit_ranges to the .validate import; SAFETY-30 added AGAINST_METER, AGAINST_OWN_POWER, SIGN_OPTION_DEFAULTS and SignWatchdog to the .watchdog import. Neither side dropped anything, so the resolution keeps both lists whole. - CHANGELOG.md: two adjacent new entries under ## Unreleased. Both kept. Both sides also independently rewrote large parts of test_peakguard.py (60 and 47 insertions against the merge base) and git merged them textually, so the full suite was run on the MERGE RESULT rather than inferred from the two parents: 19 passed, 0 failed, twice. One caveat recorded rather than hidden: test_peakguard.py failed once during the first sequential full-suite run and then passed 10/10 in isolation and in two further full runs on this same tree. It passes on both parents too, so this is the pre-existing flakiness CFG-04 already disclosed, not a merge defect - it is timing- or load-sensitive. It sits on the required CI context and can therefore block an unrelated merge at random, which wants a card of its own. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
d5c1577212 |
SAFETY-30: pin WHICH thresholds each sign detector is armed with, not just what the numbers are
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m48s
REVIEW FOUND A MUTATION SURVIVOR THAT UNDOES THE WHOLE PRODUCT OF AC 5, and it
is a coverage defect rather than a behaviour one - the shipped code arms the
detectors correctly today. In `_arm_sign_watchdogs()`, collapsing
inv.sign_wd.arm(self.sign_cfg if one else self.unit_sign_cfg, ...)
to `arm(self.sign_cfg, ...)` throws the re-derived 250 W / 85 s per-unit pair
away and arms every unit with SAFETY-02's meter-facing 300 W / 180 s - and left
ALL 19 FILES GREEN. Reproduced here before fixing anything: fresh per-mutation
tree, no __pycache__, mounted :ro, graded through tools/mutation_run.sh; -31 B;
19 pass, 0 fail.
WHY NOTHING CAUGHT IT. `grep -rn "sign_wd.cfg" test_*.py` found exactly ONE
threshold assertion, part 7's N=1 arm at (300.0, 1.0) - which the mutation
PRESERVES. Nothing at a roster of two read `inv.sign_wd.cfg` at all. The ledger
mutates the VALUES in SIGN_OPTION_DEFAULTS (M10 250->300, M11 325->180, both
correctly red through the config pins) and never the WIRING that delivers them.
Part 3's behavioural checks cannot close the gap either, and the comment now
says why: B is reversed at ~2000 W with short holds, so it trips under EITHER
pair, and a fault big enough and long enough to trip under both thresholds is
evidence about neither.
THE FIX - test_watchdog.py part 3, on the real two-inverter Controller. Every
`inv.sign_wd.cfg` equals the per-unit pair, `site_sign_wd.cfg` equals the site
pair, and each detector's `against` is its own instrument. Graded against
LITERALS, because `== self.unit_sign_cfg` cannot tell "the per-unit pair" from
"whatever this Controller was handed". Both pairs are printed.
⚠️ AND THE FIXTURE HAD TO CHANGE FOR THE PIN TO MEAN ANYTHING - the recursion
worth naming, because it is the same defect class as the one being closed.
`_sign_site` set `sign_disagree_s`, `unit_sign_disagree_s` AND
`site_sign_disagree_s` all to 1 s, with two of the three magnitude gates at
300 W. A bare equality there discriminates on `min_w` alone: a mis-wiring that
delivered the right magnitude with the WRONG HOLD compares EQUAL to the pair it
was supposed to have. A check comparing two things that happen to be equal
cannot see the difference it names (MUTATION.md's third failure mode). The
three pairs are now pairwise distinct IN BOTH COORDINATES - 250 W / 1 s per
unit, 320 W / 2 s site, 300 W / 3 s shipped - a PRECONDITION asserts that
distinctness so a later edit collapsing them goes red rather than quietly
vacuous, and a second PRECONDITION asserts the literals are the pairs this
Controller actually holds.
VERIFIED BY BREAKING IT. Three mutations, each on its own freshly copied tree
with no __pycache__, mounted :ro, through tools/mutation_run.sh:
M14 arm() handed self.sign_cfg at every roster -31 B RED (was the
survivor; the AC 5 WIRING check names the wiring)
M15 right min_w, SHIPPED hold - hold-only mis-wire +78 B RED, same pin
M16 right min_w, SITE hold - hold-only, and it still
trips inside the drive +83 B RED, and the
ONLY red in test_watchdog.py
M16 is the one that says the hold half of the equality bites on its own.
Unmutated tree: 19 pass, 0 fail, purged and fingerprinted.
Ledger rows M14-M16 and the write-up in DECISIONS/SAFETY-30-per-unit-sign.md
section 5; a CHANGELOG bullet.
NOT IN THIS PR, so it gets a card rather than a quiet fix: a stuck per-unit
power sensor would false-trip the new per-unit check at N>=2. Already-merged
SAFETY-31 has the identical exposure on the same fixture. Pre-existing N>=2
class, unreachable at the deployed roster of one.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
22c016fadd |
CFG-04 fix round: the probe now measures the key it is cited for
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m33s
Review blocked this on ONE finding, and it was in the EVIDENCE, not the code.
The design and the shipped behaviour are unchanged.
THE INSTRUMENT DID NOT MEASURE WHAT FOUR DOCUMENTS SAID IT MEASURED
tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py section B validated the RECONSTRUCTED LIVE
options blob - which is missing many required keys that have nothing to do with
this card. Its refusal therefore named whichever of THOSE the validator reached
first: the committed transcript recorded `meter_freeze_s`, the reviewer's run
printed `p1_phase_export_entities`, and a run today printed `sign_disagree_w`.
The string those documents quoted - `Missing option 'inverters' in root` - was
never produced by the instrument.
And section B asserted a bare `not ok`. Any refusal at all satisfied it, so
deleting `inverters: []` from config.yaml left it printing PASS: the probe could
not detect the one regression it is the committed evidence for.
THE UNDERLYING CLAIM IS TRUE AND IS NOW MEASURED PROPERLY
Section B is an ISOLATED COUNTERFACTUAL now: the full shipped `options:` block
(expect accept), and the SAME block with `inverters` removed and nothing else
varying (expect refusal). One key differs, so the refusal has nowhere else to
come from - and the assertion is on the KEY NAME IN THE REFUSAL STRING, so the
line goes red if the refusal is ever about a different key. The probe also exits
non-zero when any case fails; without that a transcript is only evidence to
someone who reads it.
The old live-blob case survives as section B2, relabelled for what it is: an
incomplete reconstruction whose RAW half is refused for unrelated missing keys,
kept because its MERGED half genuinely demonstrates what App.options is.
VERIFIED BY BREAKING IT, WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT
`inverters: []` deleted from config.yaml, probe re-run against
ghcr.io/home-assistant/amd64-hassio-supervisor:2026.08.0:
== B. THE LOAD-BEARING ONE: an options blob with no `inverters` key ==
FAIL the shipped `options:` block validates AS IT STANDS - ...
Missing option 'inverters' in root in GoodWe RS485 Controller
...
== 2 CASE(S) FAILED ==
exit 1. Key restored, same image, same command: `== all cases passed ==`, exit
0. The transcript in DECISIONS is that restored run, re-run today, not the old
one.
THE FOUR MIS-CITATIONS
DECISIONS/CFG-04-inverter-roster.md section 4's "section B shows both halves"
sentence and its line-103 transcript; CHANGELOG.md; test_inverter.py's part-9
comment and its part-12 mutation row; and the PR description. All now attribute
the string to section B and say plainly what section B2 does not show. The
part-12 row additionally records that the probe was blind to that mutation until
review, because a mutation table that lists a defeat nothing catches is the
failure this repository keeps finding.
MUTATION.md gains it as the sixth instance of "the check's data cannot reach the
failure it names" - the first found OUTSIDE the suite, in a committed evidence
artifact, because nothing in that document had ever been pointed at tools/. Three
habits with it: assert on the CONTENT of a refusal rather than that one happened;
vary ONE thing, from an ACCEPTED baseline; and treat a committed transcript as a
check subject to the mutation battery.
TWO NON-BLOCKING FINDINGS, ALSO FIXED
validate.py rules 5 and 6 NAMED THE WRONG INVERTER. `unit_caps()` SKIPS an
entry with no usable `max_w`, so caps position i stops being roster position i
the moment one entry is malformed - and rule 5 fed `caps.index(weakest)` to
`_unit_label()`, which indexes the roster, while rule 6 paired `caps[0]` with a
hard-wired `_unit_label(opts, 0)`. Right number, another inverter's name: an
operator sent to the wrong device by the message that exists to stop that. New
`unit_caps_indexed()` carries the roster index with the cap. It is latent -
rule 9(d) refuses such a config in the same pass - but that was a property of
today's rule ordering, not of the code, and validate_startup_config() is also
sim/inject.py's entry point. Part 10 gains a check that asserts the fixture
really does desynchronise the two lists, then that both messages name the right
unit, then the counterfactual: the OLD expressions, on that same config, still
evaluate to the wrong names.
DOCS.md called a downgrade "safe". True of the SCHEMA - the older schema drops
the key with a warning - and incomplete about the ADD-ON: rule 9(e) requires the
flat `setpoint_entity` be cleared when a roster is declared, so a config that
downgrades cleanly is by construction one whose flat actuator is blank, and the
older version has nothing to write to. Confirmed by running release/1.0's own
validate_startup_config() on that blob: one refusal, naming setpoint_entity.
Recoverable and loud, but an outage until a field is refilled. The note says so
now, and tells the operator to write the entity down before downgrading.
19/19 green in the goodwe-addon-ci image.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
f000547518 |
SAFETY-30: grade each inverter against its own power, and the site's total against the meter
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m38s
THE DEFECT, in one line. `inv.sign_wd.evaluate(stood, self.grid, ...)` compared
the command THIS controller put on ONE actuator against what the WHOLE SITE is
exchanging with the network. At a roster of one those are two views of the same
thing - specs.md §6.2's identity - and that is what makes the check sound and
what earned it the best record in the safety table (NOTES.md: 93 % agreement
while healthy against 4 % during runaway, four observed episodes, zero false
positives). At two inverters they are not, and it fails in BOTH directions:
FALSE TRIP inverter A commanded -1500 W while the meter reads +1500 W is
evidence of nothing when inverter B is discharging 3000 W exactly
as told. Nothing is faulty and the highest-value check fires.
MISSED the converse, and it is worse. A unit commanded +1500 W and
MEASURED at -1500 W, beside a sibling at +1500 W, leaves P1
exactly where a healthy site leaves it. The summation destroys the
evidence and no threshold recovers it.
DEV-02 had already shipped the per-INSTANCE half - one SignWatchdog per
inverter, namespaced latch, a trip on B no longer latching A. What was left was
the COMPARISON, and it is two questions rather than one:
PER UNIT this unit's standing command against ITS OWN measured power
(`Inverter.batt`, holding register 0x0518, per-instance since
DEV-02). Conclusion: "the actuator I am driving is not doing what I
told it" - a fact about one device, so the remedy stays the per-unit
`failsafe` SET that arbiter.CLAIM_SCOPE has classified SCOPE_UNIT
from the day it was written. That entry read "the evidence is
site-wide and the remedy is not"; the first half is now simply true.
SITE the SUM of the standing commands against the meter, as a new
`sign_site` SET at P_SAFETY on the site actuator, latched under flat
`site_sign_tripped` / `site_sign_reason`. This is the 2026-08-20
fault day and NO per-unit check can see it, because every inverter
may be faithfully executing its share of a number that is itself
wrong. It stops every inverter and the banner names the site.
WHAT IT IS NOT, said here because two guards that overlap without saying so is
how a false-alarm generator gets built. It is not SAFETY-31: circulation.py
compares the units AGAINST EACH OTHER and catches them pushing power THROUGH
each other, which nets to zero at the meter and about which no single command is
evidence. This compares each unit against ITS OWN COMMAND. They overlap in
exactly one scenario - a unit reversing while its sibling pulls the other way -
and test_watchdog.py asserts on that fixture that both fire and what each
concludes. It is also not the saturation freeze, which is a MAGNITUDE test
(|command - measured| > 500 W) that shapes the loop and fires on a merely
saturated unit; this is a DIRECTION test that latches and parks one.
THE FOUR NUMBERS, RE-DERIVED AT TWO INVERTERS - one carried with a justification
and one refused. 1890 closed-loop runs on admin/goodwe's TEST-19 two-master rig
in which NOTHING is faulty, swept over the whole range config.yaml accepts for
`gain` and `slew_w`, across load reversals with write staggers and flapping
loads, and RUN AT BOTH ROSTERS so the N=1 arm is the control:
unit_sign_disagree_w 250 `saturation_w / 2`. The check gates on both sides,
opposed, so the smallest gap it can see is 500 W -
exactly where compute()'s own anti-windup test
already says the inverter is not following. It
cannot fire on a divergence the control law calls
ordinary tracking. Worst legitimate opposition at
250 W: 10.0 s; the curve is nearly flat, because a
unit's own power chases its own command.
unit_sign_disagree_s 85 8.5x that 10.0 s, 2.8x the firmware's own 30 s
link veto (inverter.LINK_STALE_S), under half the
180 s site hold.
site_sign_disagree_w 300 CARRIED. Its argument is the meter's noise floor
and the 15 W deadband; the roster touches neither,
and the campaign agrees - the gate opens in 994 of
1050 runs at two inverters and 955 of 1050 at one.
site_sign_disagree_s 325 NOT CARRIED, and this is the number the card
exists to not assume. The worst legitimate
crossing at 300 W is 110 s with one inverter and
215 s with TWO, because the command must travel a
rail that is the roster sum at a `slew_w` that is
not - reachable at gain 0.05, slew_w 50 and a
2.2 kW load reversal, all schema-legal. 180 s
would have shipped a false trip. 325 s is 1.51x
the measured worst, inside the 900 s billing
quarter and inside every episode of the fault day.
AT ONE INVERTER NOTHING CHANGES, and "nothing" is asserted rather than assumed.
The two questions are the same sentence there, so only the detector that shipped
is armed: same comparison against the meter, same 300 W / 180 s, same reason
string byte for byte, same namespaced latch and flat rollback mirror, same
`failsafe` claim, same banner, same single status row - and the site detector is
NEVER CALLED, counted on the object over twelve cycles.
VERIFIED BY BREAKING IT. Thirteen mutations on fresh per-mutation trees with no
__pycache__, mounted :ro, with the battery refusing to report at all unless the
baseline is green. Twelve red on the first pass. M4 - the site half armed at N=1
as well - SURVIVED, because the check read `disagree_since is None` and the unit
detector trips first, parks the inverter and leaves the site standing at 0 W:
the assertion ran, the sentence was true, and the data could not reach the
failure it named. Replaced with a call counter on the object; M4 is red now.
Recorded as a survivor in DECISIONS/SAFETY-30-per-unit-sign.md §5, with the
first battery's own RED BASELINE - a shared mutation directory read mid-copy -
discarded rather than reported.
RECORDED, NOT FIXED: the site comparison is defeated by a square-wave load whose
half period is about one control cycle, which holds it opposed for ~1000 s. The
N=1 control arm is what makes that interpretable - it is identical at the roster
this add-on ships, so it is a property of comparing a lagged command against a
meter and has nothing to do with the second inverter. It wants an alternation
test rather than a number, and a card of its own.
SAFETY-24's lo-only asymmetry proof re-run unchanged: 1296 combinations, 0
negative floors, `hi` +inf on every claim, every claim on the SITE actuator.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
6b85acb0f1 |
CFG-04: an operator can declare a second inverter, and the shape was measured
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m30s
DEV-02 made every per-device value per-instance - rating, SoC, watchdogs, heartbeat, store keys - so the code stopped assuming one inverter. The options schema did not. `build_roster()` returned a list of exactly one and said so in its own docstring, and there was no `inverters:` key for an operator to write, so the roster could only ever be a roster of one. THE SHAPE, AND WHY IT WAS MEASURED RATHER THAN CHOSEN config.yaml had no list-of-objects anywhere, and `static_profile` carries a whole tariff structure as a JSON string in a `str?` precisely because a nested schema was doubted. That is a question about somebody else's software, so it was answered by running it: `tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py` (committed) runs Supervisor 2026.08.0's OWN `AppOptions` validator and `SCHEMA_APP_CONFIG`, out of the release image, against this repository's config.yaml. 2026.08.0 is the version the live install reports. The full transcript and the argument are in DECISIONS/CFG-04-inverter-roster.md. It accepts the list, enforces per-entry types, refuses a missing `name` / `setpoint_entity` / `max_w` BY NAME, renders the option in the UI as a repeatable section, and drops the key with a warning under an older schema - so a downgrade is not the forward trap in reverse. ⚠️ AND THE `inverters: []` DEFAULT IS LOAD-BEARING, WHICH IS THE MEASUREMENT THAT MATTERED MOST. Supervisor answers `Missing option 'inverters' in root` for an options blob that has no such key - which every existing install's has, since the key did not exist when they were written. `App.options` is the shipped `options:` block deep-merged with the operator's stored one, so the empty default is the difference between an upgrade nobody notices and an add-on that cannot start with a schema pinned to the version that would fix it. That is docs/deploy-rollback.md §4's trap in the FORWARD direction, found before it was sprung. The merger was checked too: lists override rather than concatenate, so a non-empty default could not have grown a roster behind the operator's back. NOTHING IS INHERITED, WHICH IS DEV-02 RESTATED AS A CONFIG RULE `name`, `setpoint_entity` and `max_w` are required of every entry. An entry that omits `soc_entity` has no SoC sensor; it does not borrow the flat one. A three-line fallback would have rebuilt the sibling-grading defect DEV-02 spent a card removing, in YAML. Defaults still live in exactly one place (CFG-03): there is no per-entry default anywhere, because there is no optional per-entry number. A flat `setpoint_entity` left set beside a declared roster is refused rather than ignored - it names an actuator nothing will write. TWO PERMISSIVE READERS IN SHIPPED CODE, AND THREE MORE IN THE CHECKS validate.py rules 5 and 6 compared their thresholds against the FLAT `max_w`. At a roster of two 2000 W units with `max_w: 5000` left over from a single-inverter install, `sign_disagree_w: 3000` passed rule 5 while SAFETY-02's watchdog could fire on NEITHER unit - rule 5's own failure mode, reached through rule 5. They read `unit_caps()` now, which at one inverter is `[max_w]` exactly. main.py's `run_control()` re-ran the device-rating check behind `if self.o.get("setpoint_entity")` - the flat key, which a roster leaves blank - so on a two-inverter site no inverter's `max_w` was graded against the device it is written to, and the skip was silent. `validate_unit_ranges()` grades each unit against its own ESPHome and runs unconditionally. test_peakguard.py's `read_option()` and `_schema_bound()` and test_inverter.py's `read_schema_max()` matched a STRIPPED line and took the first hit, so the nested per-inverter `max_w:` began outranking the flat one - silently, and correctly, because the two bounds are the same int(100,5000) today. A reader that is right by coincidence is this project's named failure mode. All three are anchored at exactly two spaces now; the file's two halves disambiguate `peak_cap_w` instead of first-match, and an ambiguous key raises rather than picking one. test_tariff.py's copy of the idiom went with them. THE AUDIT IS A CHECK, NOT A PROMISE test_inverter.py part 11 finds every config.yaml-reading function in the suite - transitively, because two of the readers CFG-04 had to change never name the file - EXECUTES each against a synthetic two-inverter config.yaml whose per-inverter numbers differ from its flat ones, and fails if any answers with the per-inverter value. The table is not maintained by hand: the signature decides, so the eleventh reader is named on its first run. config.yaml declares `inverters:` BEFORE `max_w:` on purpose and part 11 asserts that ordering, so the trap stays baited. SAFETY-28's `actuator_writers()` needed no change - it was already a structural, case-folding census - but until now there was no configuration in which two writers on one actuator could be WRITTEN DOWN. There is now, and it is refused. VERIFIED BY BREAKING IT Ten mutations run through tools/mutation_run.sh and observed red, listed in test_inverter.py part 12 with the check that bites each. Two survived the first run and the CHECKS were changed, not the table: the inheritance check had blank flat keys, so "inherited" and "not inherited" were the same empty string; and the `run_control()` check asserted a SOURCE LINE was present, which re-indenting it does not remove. Both are recorded in MUTATION.md's "the check's data cannot reach the failure it names" section, which now carries two more habits: assert on behaviour rather than on source text, and give a check whose failure mode is a hang a deadline. 19/19 green in the goodwe-addon-ci image. The one-inverter path is byte- identical: the whole existing suite runs unmodified against it. Version bumped to 0.6.0 - the Supervisor keys the built image by `version:`, so a schema change without a bump is a schema nobody reads. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU |
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
7ef3d23245 |
SAFETY-31: measure circulating power, which nets to zero at the meter
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m28s
Inverter A charging at 3 kW while inverter B discharges at 3 kW nets ~0 W at
P1. The site reads idle while both packs are cycled through two round-trip
conversion losses continuously, for no benefit, and the wear is real.
NOTHING EXISTING CAN SEE IT, AND THAT IS STRUCTURAL. Every guard in this
add-on is a consumer of the NET figure at the grid connection: SAFETY-02's
sign watchdog gates on abs(grid_w) > 300 and the gate never opens at a netted
zero; the peak guard and the capacity tariff both bill grid exchange.
Circulating power is precisely the component of per-inverter power that the
sum destroys, so no threshold on any existing detector could reach it.
WHAT ALLOC-01 ALREADY COVERED, AND IS NOT RE-IMPLEMENTED HERE. Its AC 7
shipped the sign-coherence gate (allocator.REFUSE_SIGN, graded by
test_alloc.py part 6): an allocation whose shares carry two signs is REFUSED,
both units named, no shares returned. That is the COMMAND half - the allocator
can no longer command circulating power. This commit is the MEASUREMENT half:
circulation the allocator NEVER COMMANDED.
app/circulation.py the sensor and the trip
main.py site_circulating_w, the evaluation, the claim, the alarm
arbiter.py `circulation` classified SCOPE_SITE, with the argument
store.py a flat, site-level durable latch
mqtt.py sensor.goodwe_circulating_power
config.yaml two options, two schema ranges, CFG-03 discipline
THE SENSOR: sum(|Bi|) - |sum(Bi)|. Zero when the units pull the same way,
2*min(|Ba|,|Bb|) when they oppose. DERIVED FROM MEASURED PER-INVERTER POWER -
Inverter.batt, register 0x0518 - and never from the allocation record. The
cheap version would be simpler and worth nothing: ALLOC-01's gate already
guarantees the record is sign-coherent, so a record-derived sensor reads zero
BY CONSTRUCTION and can only confirm that the allocator agrees with itself,
which is the third failure mode MUTATION.md names. What this catches is a unit
ignoring or lagging its share, a stale share still being executed, a
maintenance or SAFETY-25 pin holding one unit while the loop drives the other,
or HW-01's power stage running its last instruction for 6 h 25 m with the
comms dead and the allocation record impeccable throughout. batt became
per-instance in DEV-02; before that this could not have been written.
VERIFIED BY MAKING ONE UNIT IGNORE ITS SHARE, on the TEST-19 two-master rig:
S = -2500 W shares a = -1250 W b = -1250 W <- record ok, ONE sign, sums
MEASURED A = -1250 W B = +1000 W <- hardware
sensor over the RECORD : 0 W
sensor over MEASURED power : 2000 W -> trips at 190 s
and the card's own scenario, A -3000 W against B +3000 W at zero house load:
the meter reads +0 W, the sensor reads 6000 W, and the shipped SignWatchdog's
predicate is FALSE on 30 of 30 cycles.
WHAT "ACTED ON" MEANS - decided, and recorded in DECISIONS/. The trip files
Claim.set("circulation", P_SAFETY, 0.0) on the SITE actuator: every inverter
to 0 W, latched. HW-01 established that commanding a wedged inverter achieves
nothing, so the remedy is not aimed at it. A circulating loop needs TWO
participants and one of them is THIS CONTROLLER, faithfully driving the
listening sibling into the one that stopped listening. Stopping (1) halves the
loop, which needs no cooperation from the wedged unit, and (2) - the more
important half - makes the residue VISIBLE at the meter instead of cancelled
at it, where every ordinary guard can finally see it. What it cannot do is
stop the wedged unit; the notification says so and names the isolator as the
last actuator. SITE-scoped because the quantity is defined over the roster and
is identically zero for any one unit - there is no fact of the matter about
which of two opposing inverters is the offender, so filing it per-unit would
invent an attribution and could park the only unit still listening.
THE WINDOW IS FROM THE RIG, NOT A ROUND NUMBER (AC 3). 924 closed-loop runs in
which NOTHING is faulty, over both families of legitimate opposition (7
reversals x 5 write staggers; 7 flap periods x 4 amplitudes), swept across the
whole range the schema accepts for gain and slew_w. Worst CONTINUOUS
legitimate opposition by threshold: 505.0 s at 100 W, 40.0 s at 250 W, 10.0 s
at 300 W, 5.0 s at 400 W and above. The knee is 400 W and it is the schema
floor - below it, ordinary operation holds the sensor over the line for
minutes and no window inside the 900 s billing quarter could tell that from a
fault. circulation_w 700 is 1.75x the knee, the headroom bought for inverter
B's ramp and lag being PLACEHOLDERS until SPIKE-04 measures them.
circulation_hold_s 75 clears three bounds: 15x the worst legitimate episode,
2.5x the firmware's own LINK_STALE_S veto, 12x inside the quarter. A momentary
opposition while one unit slews through zero is LEGITIMATE - writes are
serialised, so B's number lands up to a cycle after A's - and 0 of the 924
runs trip.
THE ALARM SURVIVES AN HA RESTART (SAFETY-34). persistent_notification is in
memory, which is exactly how the 2026-09-02 outage went unseen for 6 h 25 m
with the detector correct throughout. The latch is persisted to /data as flat
site-level keys and the notification is RE-RAISED on the first cycle after
every start, through the same code path as a fresh trip - two paths would be
two chances for the restart one to rot unnoticed.
AT N=1 NOTHING CHANGES (AC 5). |B| - |B| is 0 for every reading including one
nobody took, no claim is ever filed, the arbitration is byte-identical, and
the status page says n/a rather than claiming to watch something that cannot
happen.
VERIFIED BY BREAKING IT (AC 4). 18 mutations, all RED on named checks, each on
a freshly copied tree with no __pycache__ mounted :ro. M10 - the sensor
rewritten to read self.allocation.shares - is the headline: it takes AC 2 red.
Three mutations are +0 B, the risky delta, and are marked as such. One
equivalent mutant (the max(0.0,...) guard) is ARGUED rather than claimed:
searched over 700 000 rosters without a negative. One genuine SURVIVOR was
found and closed - publish() turning an unknown into a published 0 W, the
sensor's own None rule defeated one layer out. Full ledger in DECISIONS/.
arbiter.CLAIM_SCOPE gains its ninth source, so test_peakguard.py's 10f and 10g
tripwires and test_arbiter.py's scope table went red on the line the append
was written. Updated deliberately, with the argument, as their own comments
require. Full 19-file suite green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
ab6fbe2f9e |
SAFETY-25: record the owner's decision - option a, with alloc-01 as the revisit trigger
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m43s
The product owner answered SAFETY-25's §1 on 2026-09-02: OPTION A. The BMS cut-out is the DELIBERATE and only backstop for demand-driven discharge on the grid-following loop, and Option B - a loop-side reserve floor - is DEFERRED rather than rejected. Option A is the shipped behaviour, so this is a recording, not a change. `app/` is touched in exactly two places and both are comments that claimed the question was still open (freeze.py's finding, peakguard.py's point 2). No setpoint, no claim, no option, no default moved. The 17-suite run is green on the same numbers as before. WHY DEFERRING IS THE SAFE DIRECTION. Option B's proof - bms_soc_floor < loop_soc_floor <= peak_soc_floor, run through the real arbiter in test_peakguard.py part 10d - has an unstated premise: the reserve predicate and discharge_permitted() read the SAME state of charge. With two packs they read different numbers. The reserve binds on the emptier pack and files hi = 0; the peak guard, reading the other pack or an average, files lo = excess > 0; lo > hi is arbiter clause 3 and the answer is 0 W - the battery parked in the billed quarter, which is the failure the memo itself marks fatal. And no config validator can catch it: it is a runtime divergence between two readings, not a config ordering, so CFG-01's shape of check passes on the exact tree that parks the battery. Option A's cost is energy; Option B's cost built too early is the one quarter of the month that sets the bill. THE REVISIT TRIGGER IS ALLOC-01, recorded in §0c. Under ARCH-01's host-side allocator the two claims stop sharing a list: the loop floor becomes a per-inverter `hi` consumed as an INTERVAL at stage A, while the peak floor stays a site `lo` at stage B. Different claim lists, different stages, structurally unable to cross - a stronger argument than the ordering rule, because it makes the crossing unreachable rather than harmless. That is the shape in which Option B becomes safe to build. WHAT HAS TO BE RE-EARNED AT N=2 is stated plainly in §0d rather than left for someone to discover. SAFETY-27 now names five floors across two packs, so "the SoC" stops being a scalar the config can bound. And part 10f - the pin that made SAFETY-25 mergeable - CANNOT EXPRESS TWO PACKS: its dynamic half is a scalar 0-100 % SoC sweep against a single-series capture, and a two-pack exposure lives in the DIFFERENCE between two readings, which that sweep visits at no resolution. Its static half, the AST scan pinning the eight claim sources, still bites at N=2; the dynamic half goes silent. Merging a two-pack reserve on 10f's current green would be merging on a check that cannot see the failure. The options analysis is kept intact on purpose - §1-§7 stand exactly as written, including §5's "(recommended)" on Option B and §6's recommendation, with a new §0 saying what was decided and §6 marked as answered. A memo that recorded the verdict and deleted the reasoning is the failure this DECISIONS/ directory exists to prevent. Part 10e's check moved with the memo: it used to pin the honest "Status: OPEN" line and now pins that the memo names the option, the date and the trigger AND still carries both options and the recommendation. The tripwire itself stays - a ninth claim source in Controller.cycle() still takes 10f red on the line it is written, and "deferred" is precisely the state in which someone builds Option B by accident. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
e498dd4c1c |
SAFETY-25: pin the claim-source set, so the tripwire is one
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m53s
The durability claim this PR shipped was FALSE, and the reviewer of #31 disproved it by building the fix. Part 10 said, in four committed places, that it "goes RED the day a loop-side floor is built, so the exposure cannot change size under a green suite". The reviewer implemented the memo's own recommended Option B in main.py - a `Claim.limit("reserve", P_LOOP, hi=0.0)` filed under a `loop_soc_floor` - and the ENTIRE SUITE STAYED GREEN. Part 10 green. Mutation 13 went on printing "NOTHING PREVENTS IT, ON PURPOSE" and the same 21 % -> 10.0 %, on a tree where something DID prevent it. Pushed to an absurd always-binding 95 % reserve it was caught only by SAFETY-24's pre-existing part 7 wiring checks; part 10 was still green. THE CAUSE IS STRUCTURAL, not a missing assertion. `replay_loop()` hand-builds main.py's claim list as a literal `[supervised, loop, peakguard.claim(...)]`, so it is blind to any claim main.py ADDS - which is exactly where AC 2 would be built. That is this repository's named failure mode: a check that observed something other than what it claimed to observe, shipped as a guarantee inside the document that recommends the change. THE FIX IS 10f: THE CLAIM-SOURCE SET, PINNED, two ways because the two fail differently. * STATICALLY, over `Controller.cycle()`'s own AST. Every `claims.append(...)` in it must be one the scan can read - an unreadable append FAILS rather than counting as nothing, which is how a scan like this goes quietly vacuous - and the sources it can file must be exactly {device, supervised, failsafe, safety, peak, arbitrage, maintenance, loop}. A ninth takes part 10 red on the line it is written, in every configuration, whether or not any fixture here reaches the state that files it. * DYNAMICALLY, through REAL `Controller.cycle()`s with main.py's OWN `resolve` spied - not a list this file built and hoped matched - swept over the WHOLE 0..100 % SoC range in the two states 10a-10c replay. Idle: exactly {device, supervised, loop}. Floor-limited: exactly {device, supervised, loop, peak}. A claim conditioned on a low pack, which is the shape a loop-side floor has, cannot hide from a sweep that visits 0 %. And the fold is checked rather than assumed: main.py's two P_SAFETY rating limits are both symmetric LIMITs, so replay_loop() modelling them as one `supervised` claim at the tighter bound is exact. MEASURED AGAINST THE COUNTEREXAMPLE. Reproduced first on the unfixed tree (green, as reported). On this tree the reviewer's Option B at its recommended default takes part 10 RED on 3 checks, and the 95 % variant on 6. Nine mutations were run in all, each against a freshly copied tree with no `__pycache__` present, mounted `:ro`; all nine red, no survivors, no `+0 B` delta. MUTATION.md records why a second round was needed: the first round's mutations were all aimed at DISARMING the guard, while the claim part 10 actually made was about the guard being FIXED. The four false sentences are replaced with what is now true, and each says WHICH half catches WHICH shape - 10f for an arbiter claim (Options B and C), 10a-10c for a clamp inside control.compute() or the guard (Option D), which the replay drives directly. AC 2 IS STILL OPEN AND NOTHING HERE BUILDS IT. The loop-side floor was a test mutant, reverted before commit. The memo still says "Status: OPEN. This is a memo, not a decision." Also, non-blocking, from the same review: the NOT READY banner had inherited the new scope sentence and become a ~550-character paragraph that the row three lines below repeated verbatim. A checks() row may now carry an optional short `banner` form; the floor-limited row does, and `status_payload()` prefers it. THE ROW IS UNCHANGED - shortening that would have been weakening AC 3 - and rows without the key are unaffected. Graded, and mutated: dropping the short form goes red. Merged origin/release/1.0 first (CI-02), keeping both tickets' CHANGELOG entries. Full suite green: 17/17 in goodwe-addon-ci (test_ci_gate.py needs `git`, which CI-02 added to .gitea/ci/Dockerfile but the local image lacks; run with it installed and it passes). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
182102eeaf |
SAFETY-25: say what peak_soc_floor bounds, and measure what it does not
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m41s
peak_soc_floor reads like a pack-wide reserve and is not one. The
grid-following loop has no SoC guard of any kind, so on a sustained-load
evening it discharges straight past that number and keeps going until the
pack's own BMS cut-out stops it.
The gap has now been written down four times without being filed -
SAFETY-18's finding (freeze.py:18), SAFETY-24's module note, its PR body,
and its honestly-uncaught 13th mutation - and never once measured. It is
measured here, on the committed 2026-08-20 capture, driving the SHIPPED
control.compute(), peakguard.decide(), peakguard.claim() and the real
arbiter.resolve() in main.py's order:
19:00-22:00 UTC, 830 W mean, minimum 701 W, zero export in the window
reference pack (300 Ah x 51.2 V x DoD 90) started at 21 %, one point
above peak_soc_floor
ends at 10.0 % - the bms_soc_floor cut-out
1525 Wh delivered by the LOOP over 587 cycles
549 cycles below peak_soc_floor, 343 of them still discharging
0 cycles on which the peak guard filed any floor at all
AND IT IS A BEHAVIOUR, NOT A CONFIG VALUE. The same evening ends at
9.9715 % at peak_soc_floor = 5, 11, 20 and 60 - the shipped value and both
ends of the schema range - identical to four decimal places. The option an
operator would reach for cannot move the number by any amount at all. On
the same day's high-load block the two states coexist: 49 cycles reporting
PEAK GUARD FLOOR-LIMITED and, on all 49 of them, the arbiter simultaneously
granting the loop up to 2000 W of discharge.
WHY SAFETY-24 COULD NOT CLOSE IT. The peak guard files a `lo` limit - a
LOWER bound on the setpoint. That asymmetry is exactly what makes it
trustworthy: a reviewer proved across 19,800 combinations that it can never
lower a target, cap a discharge or contradict the arbiter. The same property
makes it structurally incapable of stopping a discharge the loop itself
wants. A floor on the guard cannot become a floor on the pack by being
raised, and the sweep above is that sentence measured.
WHAT THIS COMMIT CHANGES IS THE HONESTY, on the four surfaces an operator
actually reads. That half is required whichever way the open question is
answered, and it is the real misstatement on the live system today:
* config.yaml, beside the option itself - it BOUNDS THE PEAK GUARD ONLY
and is NOT A PACK-WIDE RESERVE, with the replayed evening and the sweep;
* DOCS.md, in the options table and in a new section carrying the figures;
* the STATUS-PAGE ROW for a floor-limited guard. This is the one line a
human reads at the moment the guard stops discharging, and read alone it
says "the battery is being held at peak_soc_floor" - which the replay
shows is false in every cycle that row is rendered;
* the PERSISTENT NOTIFICATION, which outlives the page. It now names what
has stopped (the guard buying a lower bill) and what has not (the pack
being spent).
peakguard.py and freeze.py carry the measurement beside the findings they
already recorded, so the next reader does not have to take the caveat on
trust.
THE PRODUCT DECISION IS NOT TAKEN HERE, and must not be. Whether the loop
gets a reserve floor of its own decides whether this house's battery may
discharge to the BMS floor on a heavy evening; that moves real energy and it
is the owner's call. DECISIONS/SAFETY-25-loop-soc-floor.md is the memo AC 1
asks for: the options, what each costs, what each protects, weighed against
MAINT-01 (a pack repeatedly at the BMS floor is the SoC-drift condition the
maintenance cycle exists to correct, and an over-tight reserve fights it from
the other side) and against the fact that this would be the FIFTH SoC key -
OPT-04's arbitrage_soc_floor fired SAFETY-24's "revisit if a third floor
appears" trigger unremarked, so SAFETY-27's naming decision should land
first. It carries a recommendation and says plainly that it is not a
decision.
It also records a trap found while writing it, and now CHECKED through the
real arbiter rather than described: the obvious shape of a loop-side floor
is a `hi` limit at P_LOOP, and filed while the peak guard is asking for a
positive floor that is `lo > hi` - which arbiter.py resolves to a
CONTRADICTION at 0 W, the battery PARKED in the one quarter of the month
that sets the bill. It is the same crossing-limits hazard
shaping_suspended() already exists to avoid. The ordering
`bms_soc_floor < loop_soc_floor <= peak_soc_floor` removes it provably,
because wherever the reserve binds the guard is already floor-limited and
files lo = 0; both halves are run in part 10d.
test_peakguard.py part 10 is a TRIPWIRE, not a guarantee. It records a
defect and goes RED the day somebody builds a loop-side floor, so the
exposure cannot change size under a green suite and closing it has to be
deliberate. Part 11's mutation 13 stays honestly NOT CAUGHT - nothing
prevents the loop discharging past this floor - but it now reports a number
instead of a sentence.
Verified: 16/16 suites green in the CI image. Eight mutations, each against
a tree copied fresh with __pycache__ excluded and mounted :ro, so no .pyc
existed to go stale (MUTATION.md's structural immunity, the same one it
records for CI); byte deltas +61, -8, -465, -430, -1088, -46, file deleted,
and -95; none is +0 B. All eight go red on the named check:
M1 peakguard.claim() also files hi=floor_w -> 7 red, incl. 10c
M2 control.compute() gain forced to 0 -> 6 red, incl. 10a/10b
M3 scope sentence removed from the status row -> 10e red
M4 scope sentence removed from the notification -> 10e red
M5 scope paragraph removed from config.yaml -> 10e red
M6 scope bullet weakened in DOCS.md -> 10e red
M7 the decision memo deleted -> 10e red
M8 arbiter clamps crossing limits instead of
reporting a contradiction -> 5 red, incl. 10d
AC 2 is left explicitly OPEN, pending the owner's answer.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|