6ff223d44bc04eff6666bf5b390599bdd5091713
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
6ff223d44b |
CI-02 probe F: the ORIGINAL gate, unchanged, on the same unmergeable PR
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m38s
|
||
|
|
d57122ec74 |
DATA-02: a real Belgian price year, so AC4 stops being unmeetable
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m36s
OPT-04 reported AC4 - "net-positive across 12 months of replayed prices" - as NOT MET and replayed a synthetic year, because scenarios/ held only P1 meter captures. Right call, wrong diagnosis: the criterion was being carried beside a 30-day METER criterion as though both needed waiting. EPEX BE day-ahead is public data, not a capture. It needed a fetch. 8760 hourly points, 2025-09-01 to 2026-09-01 Brussels-local, canonical three fields. Licence checked BEFORE committing: Energy-Charts publishes the BE zone under CC BY 4.0 from Bundesnetzagentur | SMARD.de and other zones under private-use-only terms, so this one is redistributable with attribution. The fetcher refuses to write a file whose per-response license_info stops saying so. Cross-checked against SMARD's own 4996/DE: 96 of 96 quarter-hours, max difference 0.00 EUR/MWh. Raw wholesale, and the file says so. all_in: false, with the markup/tax assumption carried as numbers to APPLY rather than numbers applied - TARIFF-02's trap in data form. Section 7B applies it in one visible place and asserts arithmetically that its additive terms cancel out of every daily spread, so the trade count turns on the VAT multiplier alone; the raw replay is run too, so how much rests on the guess is reported (110 vs 88). DST by construction: iterate in UTC, render through price.brussels(). 2025-10-26 is 25 points, 2026-03-29 is 23, verified by counting per Brussels day rather than asserting 24, and by checking October's 02:00 appears twice at two offsets with two prices while March's never appears. Both bugs the point-and-gap accounting caught were real: a UTC-bounded window made the first day 22 hours, and an inclusive-end off-by-one dropped the last day silently. A day nobody asked for is not a day with no prices. THE RESULT, AT THE SHIPPED DEFAULT, WHATEVER IT IS. At 0.10 widened 1.5x to 0.1500: 110 round trips, +24.88 EUR net of the cycle cost. Unwidened, 173. Nothing tuned - the threshold and the 2.5/1.5 factors are untouched. And what the owner's decision now has under it: the four reports that a static ~0.0840 spread does not clear 0.10 all STAND. What was missing is that a dynamic site clears the widened requirement on 121 of 365 days, median all-in spread 0.1130, so a median day would clear at 0.0754 - 156 trips, +35.42 EUR. Reported, not applied. The synthetic year stays, because the real one cannot grade section 17: not one of 365 days has a negative DEAREST hour, so a zero there counts something that could not happen. 7B asserts that degeneracy rather than reporting the zero. Size measured, not assumed: 893 KB plain but 74.6 KB as a git object against 56.5 KB gzipped. Git already compresses; 18 KB is not worth making the provenance block - the licence claim a reviewer must check - unreadable in a diff. Nothing wired into the add-on; generic_dayahead is still the live path. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
|
2b8b8cb97f |
SAFETY-26: pin the negative-price refusal from below, not only from above
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m15s
OPT-04's reviewer weakened `if price < 0` to `if price < -0.001` and every suite stayed green while a -0.0005 EUR/kWh sell hour discharged. The shipped code was right the whole time; the CHECK could not tell correct from nearly-correct. The only probe near the boundary sat at 0.0000, which catches a `<=` and says nothing about a tolerance invented on the other side - and a tolerance on the other side is §17's named regression walking through with the suite passing. A dearest hour at -0.0005 is an ordinary Belgian day-ahead print, not a fuzz value. `app/` IS NOT TOUCHED. `if price < 0` is already correct and changing it would be the defect; this card closes the check, not the behaviour. The 0.0000 probe stays and is now labelled as the half that pins the boundary from above. The new probe is a SWEEP rather than a point, because one probe at -0.0005 closes `-0.001` and nothing else - a mutation reaching for `-0.01` would be the identical defect one decimal further out. Five prices span four orders of magnitude down to -0.000001, the last place the canonical six-decimal format can express; each is asserted to survive that rounding as strictly negative, to still be the DEAREST hour, and to still clear the widened threshold, so §17 is the only rung that can refuse. The same five magnitudes with the sign flipped all discharge, so this is a boundary at exactly zero rather than a refusal of small numbers. AC4, the look: every price/quantity boundary in arbitrage.py and static_tariff.py was given the same tolerance mutation, both directions where both exist. Two survive, both in static_tariff.py and both NAMED RATHER THAN FIXED - they are TARIFF-03's rungs and want probes in its own file. `spread == 0.0` loosened to `<= 0.001` flips a real 0.0005 spread from allowed to refused at min_spread_eur_kwh=0.0, a documented supported value, and otherwise prints a false reason about a tariff that is not flat. `len(firm) < 2` loosened to `< 1` survives at +0 bytes - TEST-15's risky delta - and is masked only by the flat rung, so the two mask each other and a later edit to either opens a hole nothing reports. Mutation verified under `python -B` with a recursive __pycache__ purge, byte delta printed (+5 B), the mutated line asserted changed, and - per the reviewer's addition to TEST-15 - the tree re-read from disk and asserted to be the tree that was mutated before each run. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
|
bdd7f18a54 |
OPT-04: charge cheap, discharge expensive - and only when it pays
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m16s
Four cards built the price stack and nothing traded on it. app/arbitrage.py is §10.1's priority 3, and it consumes all four rather than re-deciding anything: whether a trade is permitted at all, on which two hours, against which widened threshold is TariffPlan.arbitrage()'s answer, and that answer cannot be obtained without first saying whether the peak guard is holding. §9.1's "peak shaving outranks arbitrage" is therefore honoured structurally - there is no path to a spread that skips the question - and again in the arbiter, where P_PEAK (50) clamps a claim filed at P_ARBITRAGE (30). A guard that never ran is not a guard that is clear. On meter_source off the peak guard is never evaluated; that third state is carried as None and refuses, because charging at the rail creates the billed quantity while nothing measures the quarter. validate.py refuses that configuration too, along with arbitrage armed with no price source and a SoC floor at or above the ceiling. §17: never export into a negative price. The guard is on the hour being sold into, not on the spread - a day priced -0.30 .. -0.05 clears any threshold and its dearest hour is still negative. Buying in a negative hour stays allowed. resolve_tariff() may open an HTTPS connection and the tick feeds the ESP32 heartbeat, so the fetch runs in its own task at a 30 min cadence and the tick reads an attribute and an age bound. test_arbitrage.py section 8 asserts that structurally on the shipped AST: a fetch put back on cycle() is red. AC4 is NOT met and is not restated - this repository holds no price history. Section 7 replays a synthetic year and asserts the property that does not need real prices: every executed round trip cleared its own widened requirement, and zero discharges landed in the 522 negative-priced hours. At the shipped 0.10 EUR/kWh threshold a realistic Belgian day/night site does not trade at all. Reported, not tuned: that number and FCST-03's widening factors are one product decision and it is the owner's. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |