753f70053986f1db27eca56654dc8649cca15249
42
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
753f700539 |
DEV-02: merge release/1.0, and close the two review blockers
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m15s
PR #43 was rejected on two findings and had gone unmergeable behind SAFETY-28 and the ALLOC-01 fix. This is the merge commit; the conflict resolution and both fixes are below, because a merge that also changes behaviour has to say so. THE MERGE, AND WHAT IT COST =========================== Two conflicts in main.py, both where SAFETY-28 and this card touched the same method: * `write_setpoint()` split into a site entry point plus a per-unit `_write_unit()` here, while SAFETY-28 put its record gate in the old single-unit body. `write_refusal()` now takes the INVERTER it is about. Asking it with `self.unit` - as release/1.0 does - would authorise A's share on B's wire, and would also trip test_inverter.py part 1's AST scan, which goes red on any read of a Controller N=1 view inside Controller. * the SAFETY-28 gate sits above the clamp and below the non-finite coercion, exactly where release/1.0 put it, and is now asked about `inv`. Fallout the merge produced in the checks, re-aimed rather than relaxed: * every fixture that calls `write_setpoint()` DIRECTLY - the clamp probe, the hung-heartbeat experiment and its serialised counterfactual, the split deadline probe - now arms a real allocation record first. test_inverter.py grows an `arm()` built through the shipped `resolve()`, the same shape test_clamp.py's is: the per-unit envelopes are filed as real `supervised` claims and the site target is their sum, so the water-fill has exactly one answer and the fixture cannot quietly become its own allocator. * test_clamp.py's two-unit failsafe fixture assigned `c.units`, which DEV-02 made a derived property with no setter. It appends a real `Inverter`. BLOCKER 1 - AC 4's ARBITER-BOUND EVIDENCE WAS VACUOUS ===================================================== test_peakguard.py claimed "each unit's `supervised` bound is ITS OWN `max_w` - give inverter B a different rating and the claim filed on inverter B moves with it", and compared B's bound against `_b2.max_w`. `second_inverter()` DEFAULTED B's rating to `LIVE_MAX_W`, which is A's. IT COMPARED (-5000, 5000) AGAINST (-5000, 5000): a number against itself, unable to observe the failure it named. Reproduced: filing the per-unit `device`/`supervised` claims from `self.inverters[0]`'s numbers while leaving `actuator=self.actuator_of(..., inv)` alone left ALL 19 FILES GREEN. At a roster of two with A=5000/B=3000 that makes inverter B's planned envelope (-5000, 5000) instead of (-3000, 3000) - a 2000 W over-command the arbiter believes is supervised. It is a DIFFERENT defect from the actuator variant the static routing pin catches, and only the actuator variant was in the mutation table. * `second_inverter()` gives B 3000 W - a hypothesis, marked as one - for every fixture in the file, so no check there can compare B against A by accident. * the claim is asserted against LITERAL numbers rather than against an expression that can read the same object twice, for `supervised` AND for `device` (whose `dev` had the same defect), plus the envelope the ARBITER RESOLVED for B - a claim filed right and resolved wrong is the same defect one layer down. * a PRECONDITION check fails if the two ratings are ever made equal again. * the BOUND mutation is in the table, beside the actuator one, and was observed RED (3 checks in test_peakguard.py) via tools/mutation_run.sh. ⚠️ THIRD INSTANCE THIS SESSION of a check whose DATA cannot reach the failure it names - ARB-03's call-site scan saw 3 of 8 appends, ALLOC-01's replay generator saw 0 escapes where a widened one saw 39,991. MUTATION.md gains a section for it beside the stale-bytecode and masking ones, and the rule is written at the line: ANY CHECK ASSERTING "X DIFFERS FROM Y" MUST BE RUN ONCE WITH X AND Y ACTUALLY MADE DIFFERENT. BLOCKER 2 - THE LATCH WAS SILENTLY DISARMED BY THE ROLLBACK ROUND TRIP ====================================================================== store.py's rule 2 keeps the flat keys "so a rollback still finds its latch". The operator path that rule contemplates is a ROUND TRIP, and this card lost the latch on it: 1. install migrates -> schema_version=1, unit/inverter-a/... = False 2. operator DOWNGRADES; SAFETY-02 trips inside the downgrade window and the old add-on writes only the flat `sign_tripped: true` 3. operator upgrades again -> `rep.ran` is False, so `_grade_store_migration()` returned early, and `Inverter.__init__` read the namespaced key: False Observed: the controller came up with `sign_wd.tripped = False` while /data/state.json said `sign_tripped: true`. That is store.py's own header sentence - "the file still says sign_tripped: true, the banner is green, and the controller resumes driving the wrong way" - rebuilt by the version marker. A firmware version change with a rollback path was performed on this site on 2026-09-02, so this is not hypothetical. Three changes, each graded by a mutation observed RED: * THE OPERATOR'S CLEAR CLEARS BOTH SPELLINGS. That is what removes the "re-arm forever" objection the `rep.ran` gate existed to answer: with the fossil cleared, `flat True + namespaced False` is unambiguously a downgrade-window latch. * A TRIP MIRRORS THE FLAT PAIR. Rule 2 only ever covered the latch present AT MIGRATION TIME - nothing flat was written for a trip taken afterwards, so an operator who downgraded found `sign_tripped: false` and came up DRIVING. store.py claimed the staleness could only fail toward a SPURIOUS latch. It could not; that sentence is corrected rather than left standing. * THE GUARD RUNS ON EVERY START, and asks the STORE - not the roster - whether anything namespaced is latched. A mirrored trip on B must not re-arm a healthy A, and the store is the right place to ask because it holds every `unit/*/sign_tripped` this install has written, including one belonging to a unit that is not in today's roster. Graded by the three-step scenario itself, run end to end in test_inverter.py part 2, with all three preconditions asserted - including that the catching start did NOT migrate anything, which is what used to skip the guard. Part 2's idempotence check now PRESSES the button instead of hand-writing the store, because the state it used to construct is not one the shipped clear path can produce. Part 3 grades the mirror and the clear on a real roster of two. test_watchdog.py's "the flat key is NOT written" assertion is re-aimed rather than deleted: its argument was right about the READ and wrong about the WRITE. Nothing at runtime reads that key, and the one thing that does ignores it whenever any namespaced latch is set - which a sibling's trip always leaves. What its absence actually cost was the rollback. HANDOVER.md and DOCS.md said the flat key "is never read again", which was the instruction an operator clearing a trip by hand would follow. Both corrected: it is a maintained rollback view, it IS read on every start, and clearing a trip by hand means clearing both spellings. MUTATIONS THIS ROUND, each applied on a purged tree via tools/mutation_run.sh and observed RED: * per-unit `device`/`supervised` BOUNDS from `self.inverters[0]`, actuator left correct -> test_peakguard.py 10g * `_grade_store_migration()` gated on `rep.ran` -> test_inverter.py part 2 * the operator's clear leaving the flat keys set -> test_inverter.py part 2/3 * a trip not mirroring the flat pair -> test_inverter.py part 3 * the guard asking only `self.inverters[0]` -> test_inverter.py part 3 19/19 files green on the merged tree. No hardware was touched. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
e941bf7f62 |
DEV-02: zero every unit's target when the operator stops, not just the site's
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m12s
A hazard THIS CARD CREATED, found by re-reading the operator paths rather than by a failing check - so a check now exists for it. Before DEV-02 the heartbeat re-emitted `self.target`, so the stop button zeroing that one scalar was enough: the next refresh carried the zero. The heartbeat now re-emits `inv.target` - it has to, or it would put the SITE number on every inverter, which is the ARCH-01 broadcast fault arriving once every `heartbeat_s` on a path with no allocator in it. So a stop that zeroed only `self.target` left each unit's LAST SHARE standing. No cycle has run yet at that moment, so nothing else would have cleared it, and the very next heartbeat - up to `heartbeat_s` later - would put it back on the wire. The operator presses stop, watches the inverter go to zero, and sees it resume seconds later. `command_site_zero()` moves both together and carries the reason. It is one method rather than two lines at three call sites precisely because the two lines have to stay together: shutdown(), the stop button and maint_abort all mean the same thing, and 0 W is the one value that may legitimately be written site-wide. test_inverter.py part 6 presses stop with 995/995 standing and then runs the SHIPPED `send_heartbeats()` before any cycle, which is the racing refresh. The mutation that zeroes the site target alone takes it red. 19 files green. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
e306c74cb8 |
DEV-02: per-instance inverter objects, so nothing is graded against a sibling
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m15s
Every piece of per-device state in the Controller was a scalar, and several of
them are safety inputs. app/inverter.py introduces an `Inverter` that owns its
entities, its rating, its device range, its SignWatchdog, its last_write and
its last_beat, under store keys namespaced by unit name. The Controller holds a
list of them and keeps only what is genuinely site-level: the P1 reading, the
site integrator, and the tariff quarter.
WHAT THE SCALARS WERE SILENTLY ASSERTING
dev_min/dev_max one pair, read from one setpoint_entity. A second
inverter's rating was NEVER READ AT ALL, so its clamp, its
freeze rail and the peak guard's achievable_w were the
first one's numbers.
soc one reading into the maintenance FSM, SAFETY-24's pack
floor and arbitrage's bounds. An average lets the emptier
pack be driven below its own floor.
sign_wd ONE SignWatchdog, whose own docstring says "one instance
per actuator", latched under FLAT store keys - so a trip
caused by B latched A across restarts and one operator
press cleared both.
last_beat one deadline and one serialised hass.call(), so a hung
write to A ate B's 30 s layer-1 budget.
actual_w BECAME SITE LEVEL WHILE THE READINGS BECAME PER-INSTANCE, and those
are opposite directions on purpose. compute()'s anti-windup test is
`abs(prev_w - actual_w) > saturation_w` with prev_w the SITE target, so feeding
it one inverter's power compares a site number against a unit number, trips the
saturation freeze permanently and leaves a standing grid error. Measured on
admin/goodwe's two-master rig (tools/alloc_sim.py --splits, 2 kW load, 40
cycles), worst |delta| between splits at the meter:
gain one unit's power the site sum
0.2 510 W 0 W
0.4 250 W 0 W
0.6 50 W 0 W
That was ALLOC-01's disclosed finding; test_alloc.py part 8 kept its stimulus
and now grades the other row.
THE STORE MIGRATION IS GRADED, NOT MERELY PERFORMED. sign_tripped/sign_reason
move to unit/<name>/... once, verified by READING BACK what was written, and
the version marker is set only when nothing that carried state was lost. The
flat keys stay in the file so a rollback still finds its latch. And __init__
compares the pre-migration flat latch against what unit A actually came up
with: if the latch did not survive it is RE-ARMED from the legacy value and
shouted about. A latch that silently fails to migrate is a disarmed safety
guard on an install whose state file says it is protected - which is strictly
worse than never persisting it, because now there is evidence saying it is
fine. test_inverter.py part 2 breaks the migration and watches the guard fire.
HEARTBEATS ARE INDEPENDENT AND THE BUDGET IS DERIVED. Each inverter owns its
deadline, the refreshes go out concurrently, and each write is bounded by
WRITE_BUDGET_S = 4 s. The inequality is graded rather than asserted: 4 +
heartbeat_s's schema maximum of 25 < 30, validate.FIRMWARE_INGEST_VETO_S.
Verified by injecting a transport that accepts and never answers.
live_units() ANSWERS HONESTLY. A unit whose every write has been rejected for a
whole layer-1 window is not commandable; the allocator drops it, the survivors
carry its share, the action log names it, and the dropped unit is commanded
0 W rather than left standing on its last share. A roster entry with NO
setpoint_entity is deliberately not handled there - that is a configuration
that cannot be delivered, and it reaches main.py's refusal branch, which is how
that branch keeps a live trigger after this card removed its old one.
AT N=1 NOTHING MOVES. The removed scalars survive as read/write properties of
the sole inverter, so every existing replay runs unmodified - and they REFUSE
at N>=2 rather than answering for the first inverter, which is the tripwire on
a consumer that was never made per-instance.
EVIDENCE. 19 files green. test_inverter.py is new (82 checks). Eighteen
mutations were applied to the shipped modules on a purged tree via
tools/mutation_run.sh and each was observed RED. Two of them SURVIVED first
time and the checks were changed rather than the table: the serialised dispatch
and the shared last_beat both passed while part 6 gathered its own writes and
computed its own `due` list. send_heartbeats() was extracted from run_control()
so the shipped dispatch is reachable by a check at all.
INVERTER B STILL DOES NOT EXIST. build_roster() returns exactly one inverter
from the flat options and is the one function CFG-04 changes; every two-unit
figure here is architecture, and the second rating in the checks is marked a
hypothesis.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
Claude
|
591c35ed01 |
SAFETY-28: gate the write path on the allocation record, not on key count
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m19s
specs §1.5 makes "any configuration in which two writers can reach one
actuator" a non-goal. That non-goal was enforced by counting config keys:
validate.py's ACTUATOR_WRITE_KEYS = ("setpoint_entity",), consumed at rule 1,
with a comment stating the guarantee outright - "there is exactly one such
key, so a second writer is not expressible in the options schema at all".
That was true and it graded THE SHAPE OF THE OPTIONS SCHEMA, not the writes.
Add CFG-04's per-inverter config - a roster of inverters each with its own
setpoint_entity - and there are two real writers with len() of that tuple
still equal to 1. The check stays green while the property it protects is
gone. sim/inject.py's two_writers scenario asserted on the same tuple, so it
went green too. That is this repository's named failure mode: a check that
observes something other than what it claims to observe.
Demonstrated rather than argued. test_validate.py part 2 now constructs the
hazardous per-inverter config, asserts that the OLD proxy is still green on
it, and then asserts the new check refuses it. Against release/1.0's
validator the updated sim scenario reports: "validate_startup_config()
ACCEPTED a configuration in which 3 declarations reach the ONE actuator
number.goodwe_setpoint ... the old proxy reports 1 write key(s) on this same
config and is therefore GREEN on it".
THE WRITE PATH IS NOW GATED ON THE RECORD
=========================================
Controller.write_refusal() asks Allocation.authorises() whether the single
allocator placed exactly this number, for this unit, on this tick.
write_setpoint() refuses anything else. A second writer with arithmetic of
its own cannot satisfy that - its number appears in no record - so it has to
file a Claim and go through resolve(), which is the one allocator. "Exactly
one allocator per shared resource" stops being a convention somebody can
forget and becomes something the write path checks.
The refusal is a SUBSTITUTION, not a return: 0 W goes on the wire in place of
the number nothing stands behind. Returning would leave the inverter latched
on its last command with the ESP32 heartbeat still being fed - holding an
unauthorised setpoint quietly, which is the outcome the gate exists to stop.
AC 1 is "refused at the write path, not merely logged", and test_clamp.py
part 7a grades the device's writes, not the log.
The gate sits BELOW the non-finite coercion and ABOVE the clamp. Below,
because a nan is loss of input and rule 1 has already turned it into 0 W.
Above, because the question is who chose this number, and the answer is only
meaningful about the number that was asked for - gating the CLAMPED value
would refuse exactly the cycles SAFETY-03 exists for, since a clamped write
differs from the allocator's share by construction. Mutation M7 moves the
gate below the clamp and turns nine checks red, part 6c among them.
A STALE RECORD CANNOT BE REPLAYED
=================================
Every Allocation now carries the `tick` it was made for. It is handed IN by
the caller - plan(..., tick=) - rather than counted inside the allocator,
because test_alloc.py part 10 grades that the module holds no state at all,
and a serial number incremented in there would be the cached-across-ticks
thing the envelope rule forbids wearing a different hat.
Controller.alloc_tick advances ONCE PER RESOLUTION, not once per loop
iteration, and both halves are load-bearing:
* a new allocation makes the previous record stale immediately, so a record
whose envelopes have moved cannot authorise a write. That is the replay
half (AC 2), graded by capturing a real record, running another real
cycle, putting the old one back and observing refusal.
* the "inputs missing, not yet stale" hold returns BEFORE the allocator
runs, exactly so one dropped meter reading does not zero the inverter,
and the heartbeat re-affirms self.target through this same gate while it
does. A tick incremented per loop iteration would refuse that heartbeat
and turn the hold into the outage it exists to prevent. Graded.
An UNSTAMPED record (tick None) authorises nothing: "I cannot say when I was
made" fails closed rather than reading as tick zero.
THE FAILSAFE CANNOT DEADLOCK BEHIND THE GATE, AND HERE IS WHY
=============================================================
write_setpoint() is also how layer 2 commands 0 W. cycle()'s two refusal
branches substitute a 0 W failsafe and write it like any other cycle;
shutdown() and the operator's stop button do the same. EVERY ONE OF THOSE
RUNS WHILE THE ALLOCATOR HAS REFUSED - ok is False and there are no shares -
so a gate that asked the allocator's permission to command zero would block
the safety write behind the very component whose failure the safety write
answers. A gate that can do that is worse than the hole it closes.
Resolved by authorising 0 W unconditionally, and on the VALUE rather than on
a failsafe=True flag: a flag is an assertion by the caller, which is exactly
what a second writer would pass; the value is a fact about what will be
written. The argument that this is safe and not merely convenient is that the
hazard §1.5 names is N-times loop gain from BROADCAST - handing every inverter
the same target so each supplies it in full (allocator.py's opening argument;
TEST-19 measured a permanent 4000 W p2p limit cycle at gain 1.0 with no guard
firing). At S = 0 the broadcast and the correct allocation COINCIDE: a_i = 1
for every unit gives every unit 0 W, which is exactly its share. There is no
over-command to make at zero. Said at the line, in write_refusal().
test_clamp.py part 7c drives it end to end through the real cycle() and the
real REFUSE_EMPTY branch: the allocator refuses every tick, the device still
sees 0 W, and the action log says ARBITER: REFUSED rather than WRITE REFUSED
so the two failures stay distinguishable to whoever has to debug them.
unmet_w IS STILL NOT ok
=======================
The gate reads ok and the unit's share and never unmet_w. allocator.py:179
says why: an allocation that could not place every watt is still safe to
write, and fusing them would let one saturated inverter park the whole site.
Graded on a record with 3800 W unmet and every share legal - mutation M5 adds
`or self.unmet_w` to the gate and that check goes red.
THE CONFIG CHECK, REPLACED RATHER THAN DELETED
==============================================
actuator_writers() counts WRITERS PER ACTUATOR instead of option keys. It
walks the options TREE rather than looking for a container called `inverters`,
because CFG-04 has not chosen that name yet and a census that guessed wrong
would go green while two writers existed - the same defect one step along.
Entity ids are folded to lower case so a second writer cannot be smuggled in
as Number.X versus number.x.
Two inverters with two entities are ACCEPTED - that is what the per-inverter
roster is for, and a validator that refuses the feature it guards is one
somebody switches off. Two declarations aimed at ONE entity are refused,
naming the actuator and every writer pointed at it. That includes the case an
author will meet first - keeping setpoint_entity as A's and listing A again -
because "they happen to be the same entity, so it is fine" is precisely the
reasoning that makes two writers invisible.
ACTUATOR_WRITE_KEYS survives ONLY as the enumeration a census needs, with its
guarantee comment deleted; nothing asserts on its length any more. Keeping the
name is also what stops admin/goodwe's current two_writers scenario failing on
an AttributeError between the two merges.
WHAT NEITHER CHECK OBSERVES, SAID OUT LOUD
==========================================
The census sees CONFIGURED writers. A second write path added in CODE - a
hass.set_number() call next to some new strategy - declares nothing and is
invisible to it, exactly as it was invisible to the tuple. That half is not
closed at startup and cannot be; it is closed at runtime by the record gate,
which does not care what the options look like or who called the method. The
two checks are deliberately different kinds, and only the runtime one survives
a schema this file has not seen yet.
EVIDENCE
========
* Full 18-file suite green on a purged tree (tools/mutation_run.sh).
* Verified by breaking it - seven mutations, each on a purged tree, each
reverted and re-verified:
M1 remove the gate -> test_clamp red (4 checks)
M2 make the zero exit an amnesty -> test_clamp red (12 checks)
M3 drop the tick comparison -> test_clamp red (5 checks)
M4 delete the census refusal -> test_validate red (3 checks)
M5 fuse unmet_w into ok -> test_clamp red (1 check)
M6 freeze the tick on the live path -> test_clamp red (2 checks)
M7 move the gate below the clamp -> test_clamp red (9 checks)
* AC 5: no existing check was weakened. The two edits to test_clamp.py are
fixtures, not assertions - parts 5 and 6c call write_setpoint() directly
with a number nothing allocated, which is now refused, so they say where
their number came from. Every assertion in both parts is unchanged, and
part 7f asserts that across part 3's sixty real cycles the gate refused
zero writes.
* admin/goodwe's TEST-19 norig scenarios (planner_binding, two_master_plant,
two_master_broadcast) still pass against this tree - they import the
add-on's control law across the repo boundary.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
186e13ceca |
ALLOC-01: allocate the site grid target, sum-invariant, never broadcast
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m6s
ARB-03 left `allocate()` as a documented seam that passed through at N<=1 and
DECLINED at N>=2, with the reasoning recorded at the line: the obvious
placeholder - hand the site target to each inverter - IS the ARCH-01 fault, and
"a placeholder that cannot be told apart from the real thing by any guard we
have is worse than no placeholder". This fills the seam.
WHY A BROADCAST IS A FAULT AND NOT AN INEFFICIENCY. The control primitive is
meter emulation: the master reports a FABRICATED grid reading and the inverter
regulates itself to it, so one number means "the battery moves X W" to this
add-on and "the grid is at X W" to the inverter - an identity that holds only at
N=1. Hand two inverters the same target and each supplies it IN FULL, so the
loop gain at the meter becomes N times the per-unit gain. Reproduced on
admin/goodwe's two-master rig against this tree: -400 W export overshoot at
gain 0.6, and at gain 1.0 - which config.yaml accepts as its documented maximum
- a permanent 4000 W peak-to-peak limit cycle, commands alternating
1000/2000/1000/0 W, with NOT ONE GUARD FIRING. The sign watchdog is evaluated on
every cycle and never trips, because the disagreement flips on alternate ticks
and never holds its 180 s window.
WHAT WAS BUILT. `app/allocator.py`, host-side and strictly above the driver
seam. It consumes intervals and a number and nothing else - no claims, no
priorities, and no measurement, because an allocator that read P1 would be a
SECOND integrator on the site measurement.
* ENVELOPE CLAMP, from ARB-03 stage 1's `UnitBounds`, read PER TICK. `plan()`
is a pure function and the module holds no state, so there is nowhere for a
construction-time envelope to be cached.
* WATER-FILL by weight, with the surplus of a full unit moving to the others.
Weights express PREFERENCE, envelopes express PERMISSION: a zero weight is
honoured while another unit has headroom and overridden when it does not,
because the SUM is the safety property and stranding capacity behind a
comfort choice manufactures a standing error at the meter.
* LARGEST-REMAINDER ROUNDING. The target is rounded ONCE, at the top; every
sum below that line is integer arithmetic, so it cannot drift. Measured: a
per-unit round() drifts -125 W over 50 000 ticks at three inverters.
* THE ALLOCATION RECORD, with `unmet_w`, `dropped` and a per-unit reason.
`ok` is one boolean for SAFETY-28 to gate on, and `unmet_w` is deliberately
NOT fused into it - a saturated inverter must not park the whole site.
THE STABILITY PROPERTY IS STRUCTURAL. With sum(a_i) = 1 the gain at the meter is
sum(a_i * g_i), a convex combination of the per-unit gains, so it lies in
[min g_i, max g_i] FOR ANY SPLIT. That is what makes the weights a comfort
choice rather than a tuning parameter, and it is why a bad split cannot
destabilise the site. Graded directly, and measured end to end: 90/10, 50/50 and
100/0 give a bit-identical aggregate trace at the meter, and a gain sweep to 1.0
at every split has a flat tail at all 84 combinations.
THE TWO REFUSALS main.py NOW MAKES, AND WHY THERE ARE TWO. `allocated=False` no
longer means "no allocator"; it means no safe split EXISTS - a mis-routed claim,
an empty envelope set, or a split that could only be made by commanding one pack
to charge while another discharges. Separately, and this guard is the price of
making allocate() succeed rather than something inherited, main.py refuses to
act on a valid split it cannot DELIVER: there is one `setpoint_entity`, so
writing the site target to the one inverter it can reach would over-command that
inverter by exactly the other's share. Commanding a partial site is a worse
instruction than commanding nothing. DEV-02 gives it the second writer.
scope_violations() IS NOW CONSUMED, AND AS A REFUSAL. ARB-03 left it logging
without changing the resolution. A mis-routed claim means the number about to be
divided may itself be wrong, and dividing a number that may be wrong is worse
than not dividing it - the same answer clause 3 already gives a contradiction.
It is NOT promoted into an envelope: a unit-scoped claim that landed on the site
names no unit, so promoting it would mean guessing one, or applying one
inverter's rating to a sibling that does not have it.
AT N<=1 IT IS A PASS-THROUGH, BYTE-IDENTICAL: the share is the site target, as a
float, unrounded and unclamped. All 17 existing suites replay unedited.
test_peakguard.py part 10h and test_arbiter.py part 7 were RE-AIMED, not
deleted. PR #40's reviewer proved that refusal branch was unreachable and
untested once; removing its trigger without giving it a new one would have
rebuilt the hole. Part 10h now drives three real cycles - a deliverable split, a
dead sibling, and every master stale - and grades all three.
KNOWN AND NOT CLOSED HERE: at a roster of two the loop's `actual_w` is one
inverter's power used as a site measurement, because the add-on binds a single
`inverter_power` sensor. That is the SENSING half of the same N=1 identity this
card removes from the COMMANDING half, and it makes the aggregate trace
split-dependent below gain 1.0. Measured with its counterfactual in test_alloc.py
part 8 and tools/alloc_sim.py --splits. It belongs to DEV-02.
Verified: all 18 suites green in the CI image. 16 mutations run through
tools/mutation_run.sh on a purged tree; 13 red, and the 3 survivors are recorded
in test_alloc.py part 12 with the reason each cannot be caught.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
38f6680639 |
ARB-03: pin all eight actuator call sites statically
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m45s
The independent review of PR #40 found AC 6 met at three of the eight claim construction sites while the check claimed to cover the class - this repository's named failure mode, a check observing something other than what it claimed, reproduced inside the check written to prevent it. WHAT WAS WRONG. Part 10g's only call-site check was a real two-inverter cycle. That cycle is auto, P1-healthy, no maintenance procedure, no tripped sign watchdog, the guard idle and arbitrage off, so it reaches `device`, `supervised` and `loop` and nothing else - three of the eight direct appends in `Controller.cycle()`. Its own check text nevertheless read "the line a mis-typed `actuator_of(...)` at a call site goes red on", and the PR body's mutation table presented it as covering the class. The reviewer proved the gap on the shipped tree: `actuator_of("maintenance")` -> `actuator_of("peak")` at the maintenance-shaping append left test_arbiter.py, test_peakguard.py and test_arbitrage.py ALL GREEN, while at a roster of two it built a site loop of -1500 W against the guard's site `lo` of 1500 W and the now-misrouted charge-only `hi = 0` - `lo > hi`, arbiter clause 3, 0 W IN THE BILLED QUARTER, SAFETY-25 §0a's fatal case from a one-word typo. The same mutation at the `failsafe` append survived too. The runtime detector does fire - `scope_violations()` names it - but it only logs; nothing graded it. THE FIX, over machinery already present. Part 10f's AST scan already reads each `claims.append(...)` in `Controller.cycle()`. All eight direct appends expose their actuator statically as `actuator=self.actuator_of('<literal>')`, so 10g now requires that literal to EQUAL the source the claim is filed under, read as SOURCE TEXT rather than evaluated - `actuator_of("peak")` at the maintenance append is the same VALUE at the shipped roster of one and a different string here. That pins all eight routing sites, on the line the typo is written, in every configuration and at every roster, exactly the way 10f pins the source set. Two further lines keep the scan from going vacuous: every direct append must be readable in that shape (a computed or hand-written actuator fails there), and the ten appends must still account for 10f's eight sources. The two INDIRECT appends carry no `actuator=` at the call site to mis-type. `peak_claim` and `arb_claim` are routed where their claim is built, and are pinned there - `peakguard.claim()` by the SWEEP_SITE sweep over every load x elapsed x battery x SoC x floor combination, `arbitrage.claim()` by test_arbitrage.py. 10g now says so at the line, and says which three of the eight its dynamic cycle actually sees, rather than rounding up. MEASURED, NOT ARGUED. Each of the eight direct appends mutated in turn to a wrong actuator - device->loop, supervised->peak, failsafe->safety, safety(stopped)->device, safety(inputs missing)->maintenance, maintenance(SET)->loop, maintenance(shaping)->peak, loop->supervised - each on a purged tree via tools/mutation_run.sh over all 17 files. All eight RED, every one of them on the new line. TWO SURVIVING MUTATIONS OF THE SAME CLASS, ALSO CLOSED. * `resolve()` did not have to honour the roster it was given: `if units is None:` -> `if True:` left the whole suite green. Ignoring the argument makes a unit that filed nothing this cycle cease to exist - a site of two reads as a site of one and stage 3 passes the whole grid target through to the inverter that spoke, which is ARCH-01's fault with its own evidence removed. test_arbiter.py part 7 now grades it on the one case that separates the two, a SILENT unit. Mutation RED in test_arbiter.py and test_peakguard.py. * main.py's N>=2 refusal was unreachable and ungraded: `if not resolution.allocated:` -> `if False:` left the whole suite green, so the right instinct was one refactor away from being deleted as dead code. The guard is KEPT - the alternative default is the ARCH-01 fault - and new part 10h grades it on the two-inverter cycle that already existed: the 0 W, the `failsafe` winner, the log line naming the roster size, and the write that follows. Mutation RED. AND THE WORDING CORRECTED. main.py does not "refuse to write" on `allocated=False`. It SUBSTITUTES a 0 W failsafe and then calls `write_setpoint(0.0)` like any other cycle. 0 W is the correct fail-toward-inaction direction and the log text is accurate about what it refuses - to BROADCAST the site target - but "refuses to write" overstates the code. Said as what it does, in the CHANGELOG, at the branch in main.py, and in 10h's own check text. `resolve()`'s docstring now says the roster argument has to be HONOURED, which is not the same as existing. 17/17 green on a purged tree. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
 adminandClaude Opus 5
|
06f95e0a64 |
ARB-03: restore Claim.actuator and make resolve() three-stage
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m45s
specs.md:467 declares `actuator: str` as the FIRST field of `Claim`.
app/arbiter.py:55 had no such field. The specification designed
per-actuator claims and the implementation dropped it, so every claim was
implicitly about "the one and only actuator", resolve() returned one scalar
Resolution.target_w, and main.py assigned it to one self.target. THERE WAS
NO SEAM AN ALLOCATOR COULD OCCUPY - and ARCH-01 (specs.md §6.2, 2026-09-02)
decided the site grid target is ALLOCATED across several inverters and never
broadcast. This is a regression fix against the written design; creating that
seam is the whole of the change.
WHY IT MATTERS, IN THE UNITS THE SYSTEM IS BILLED IN. The control primitive
is meter emulation: the master reports a fabricated grid reading and the
inverter regulates itself to it, so one number means "the battery moves X W"
to the add-on and "the grid is at X W" to the inverter - an identity that
holds only at N=1. Broadcast one target to two inverters and each supplies it
in full; the loop gain at the meter becomes N times the per-unit gain, which
at the gain config.yaml:374 accepts is a permanent limit cycle with every
watchdog in §11.2 reporting healthy. And a per-inverter reserve filed as a
site `hi` against the peak guard's site `lo` is `lo > hi`, arbiter clause 3,
0 W IN THE BILLED QUARTER - the parked battery SAFETY-25's memo calls fatal.
THE SPLIT, VERIFIED AT EACH CONSTRUCTION SITE RATHER THAN ACCEPTED FROM THE
SURVEY. Four sources are about the GRID CONNECTION and are SITE claims:
`loop` (compute() regulates grid_w, the P1 measurement, and §6.2's whole
architecture is one integrator on P1 whose output is then split), `peak` (the
15-minute average offtake AT the grid connection, which is what the capacity
tariff bills - one quarter-hour peak per site, not one per pack),
`arbitrage` (buys and sells at the grid against a day-ahead price; the price
is a property of the connection and the energy crosses the meter) and
`safety` (both construction sites read: "stopped" is the operator switching
control off for the site, "inputs missing" is the site's own meter gone -
neither is about a pack, and both must stop every inverter).
Four are about a pack, a device or one write and are PER-INVERTER: `device`
(one inverter's own reported min/max - there is no site rating),
`supervised` (max_w caps what may be WRITTEN to one setpoint entity, §11.3,
so it is scoped like `device` for the same reason), `maintenance` (§12's
recalibration is a pack procedure - drain THIS pack, charge THIS pack,
recalibrate THIS pack's counter) and `failsafe`. `failsafe` is the entry that
needed the reading rather than the survey: SAFETY-02's EVIDENCE is site-wide
(it compares P1 against the standing command) but its CONCLUSION is
"the unit I am driving is pushing power the wrong way" and its remedy is to
park that unit. At N>=2 the same evidence cannot be attributed to a sibling
this controller never commanded, so a site-wide stop would park an inverter
this watchdog never graded. The reasoning for all eight is recorded AT THE
LINE, in arbiter.CLAIM_SCOPE and again at each claims.append in main.py.
WHAT WAS BUILT. resolve() is three stages, each a separate function so a test
can construct a case at any one of them:
pre_resolve() - one inverter's own claims -> that unit's interval. Clauses
1 and 2 transposed: the unit's own winning SET gates its
own limits. The SET's value travels BESIDE the interval,
not inside it - folding a -2500 W drain into
[-2500, -2500] would turn "clamped to max_w" into
"contradicts max_w", a different and wrong answer.
site_resolve() - THE SHIPPED ARBITER, UNCHANGED. Same code, new name.
allocate() - THE SEAM, AND DELIBERATELY NOT AN ALLOCATOR. ALLOC-01
builds it. At N<=1 it passes the target through (§6.2's
identity). At N>=2 it DECLINES - no shares,
allocated=False - and main.py refuses to write rather than
broadcast, because the obvious placeholder (hand the target
to each) is the fault ARCH-01 was filed about and no guard
we have can tell it apart from the real thing.
THE CONTRADICTION IS NOT GUARDED AGAINST, IT CANNOT BE WRITTEN DOWN. The
partition is by `actuator` and it is a partition: a unit's `hi` and the site's
`lo` are never both terms of one `lo > hi` test. Constructed and swept - 40
filings (every per-inverter source x unit x bound, including a unit
contradicting ITSELF at lo 900 > hi 100) against a live site floor, and not
one moves the site target or raises a contradiction. A unit's own impossible
pair parks that unit and says so on its own bounds; it does not park the site.
That is SAFETY-25 §0c's table made mechanical.
AT N=1 THIS IS A PURE REFACTOR, AND THAT IS PROVEN RATHER THAN ASSERTED. With
one inverter the fabricated grid reading and the battery setpoint are the same
number, so the grid connection and the only unit ARE one actuator:
actuator_for() routes every source to the site, no claim is filed on a unit,
stage 2 sees the whole list and answers what the shipped arbiter answered.
All 17 suites replay UNEDITED above the ARB-03 sections and are green on the
same numbers; test_arbiter.py additionally runs 13 claim lists through both
resolve() and site_resolve() and compares target, winner, binder,
contradiction flag, the considered list and the operator line.
EVIDENCE, BY BREAKING EACH THING (tools/mutation_run.sh, purged tree):
* Claim's dataclass default emptied -> RED (test_arbiter)
...and it survived until the check was added: the two helpers pass their
own default down, so the FIELD's default never ran. Now checked directly.
* `peak` reclassified SCOPE_UNIT -> RED (arbiter x4, peakguard x2)
* `maintenance` reclassified SCOPE_SITE -> RED (arbiter x4, peakguard)
* the N=1 identity dropped in actuator_for() -> RED (arbiter, peakguard
incl. the maintenance/peak suppression checks, freeze) - which is the
measurement that says splitting at N=1 would be a behaviour change
* resolve() stops partitioning -> RED (arbiter x4)
* allocate() broadcasts at N>=2 -> RED (arbiter x2)
* stage 1 drops clause-2 gating -> RED (arbiter)
* a call site routes `device` through `loop` -> RED (peakguard 10g)
* SAFETY-25 Option B built as a ninth source -> RED (peakguard 10f, both
halves, plus 10g) - the tripwire still bites
SAFETY-24's asymmetry proof is re-run and holds: 0 negative floors over the
shipped sweep, `hi` still +inf on every claim the guard files, and it now also
asserts every one of them is on the SITE actuator - a floor bound to one
inverter's share would leave the site, the thing the capacity tariff meters,
with no floor at all.
test_peakguard.py part 10f is kept, not adapted around. `source` is still
Claim.set()'s first positional argument precisely so its AST scan keeps
reading it, which is why `actuator` is the LAST field of Claim and not the
first - moving `source` off position 0 would silently blind the tripwire that
guards SAFETY-25's deferred option. The one adaptation is `**kw` on its spy,
so main.py's roster passes through unread rather than being silently dropped.
New part 10g pins CLAIM_SCOPE to the same eight-source set and grades a REAL
two-inverter cycle, which is the only place a mis-typed actuator_of(...) at a
call site is observable - at N=1 every source legitimately routes to the site,
so a swap there is invisible by construction.
No config key, no option, no operator surface, no default moved. Inverter B
does not exist yet and nothing here measures it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
Claude
|
b68f288fef |
TEST-11: pin the clamp guard to the write it reads
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m40s
check_output_clamp() sits one line below `await self.write_setpoint(self.target)` in cycle(), and moving it above the write left test_clamp.py, test_freeze.py and test_loop.py ALL GREEN. Measured on the move itself before this commit; measured again after, where test_clamp.py part 6 goes red and the other two are still green - the gap was real and it was only ever in this file. WHAT IS ACTUALLY LOST. The guard has two evidence sources. `self.loop_clamped` is set from the Decision well above the write and survives the move, and on the 10.3 runaway replay it is the source of every engagement the alarm reports (0 write-path engagements against 2 loop-side ones) - which is exactly what makes the move nearly invisible. `self.clamp_last` is assigned by write_setpoint() and by nothing else, is None until it has run, and is what `engaged_write` reads at main.py:856. Moved above the write, that consumer goes quietly false and a DEVICE-bound clamp - max_w above the inverter's own rating, SAFETY-20's install - is reported by nothing. A guard whose second evidence source can be silently disconnected is one refactor from being half a guard. WHAT THE CHECK PINS, AND WHAT IT DELIBERATELY DOES NOT. Not the position: the comment at that line warns against tidying SAFETY-03's ordering and SAFETY-18's into one rule, and a check a rename breaks is worse than none. It pins the CONSEQUENCE - what `self.clamp_last` held each time the guard consulted the watchdog - using a spy subclassed from the shipped ClampWatchdog over a slew-limited ramp where every cycle's command is a different number, so "this cycle's evidence" and "last cycle's" are distinguishable at all. The spy hooks `clamp_wd.note()`, the consumer, rather than the guard's name: that is what keeps a rename legitimate. The same assertions are re-run through a controller whose guard is renamed and whose write lives in a helper, and were verified against main.py itself - renaming the method throughout AND moving both calls into a new `_emit_and_guard()` helper keeps part 6 green; swapping the two calls turns it red on a line that names clamp_last. WHY AC 3 NEEDED A NEW STIMULUS, AND WHY IT IS NOT DRIVEN THROUGH cycle(). Through the real cycle() the write-path half cannot engage: the arbiter files the device range and max_w as P_SAFETY LIMIT claims, so resolution.target_w is already inside both bounds before write_setpoint() re-applies them. That duplication is deliberate defence in depth; part 6 now MEASURES the zero engagements rather than leaving it as a claim in a comment, and then drives the write path directly at max_w 5000 against a +-2500 W device - the wire carries 2500 W, every loop-side flag stays clean, and the alarm fires on clamp_last alone. With the two calls swapped the same stimulus clamps the same value and the alarm is silent, which is the ticket in one pair of runs. main.py gains one comment sentence naming the check, mirroring the one SAFETY-18's block already carries for test_freeze.py part 5. No behaviour changes. Full suite: 17/17 green in goodwe-addon-ci. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
d5b1ef19b3 |
CFG-03: give maintenance option defaults one source of truth
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m44s
Option defaults for the maintenance cycle were declared in three places that
could disagree, and MAINT-04 proved they already did. config.yaml shipped
`maintenance_charge_w: 2000`; main.py carried TWO `opts.get(..., 2500)`
fallbacks; MaintConfig's dataclass carried a third `2500.0`. So an options dict
with the key ABSENT was ACCEPTED by validate.py's rule 6 - which read 2000 -
and then built by main.py at 2500, against a 2000 W ceiling:
options dict with maintenance_charge_w ABSENT, max_w=2000
validate_startup_config -> [] (accepted, no problems)
MaintConfig().charge_w -> 2500.0
arbiter.resolve() -> 0.0 W, contradiction=True
That is the bug rule 6 exists to refuse, passing rule 6. It is unreachable on a
Supervisor install, which always supplies every key from config.yaml, and fully
reachable from sim/inject.py and from the test suite - which is where anyone
debugging maintenance actually works.
MAINT-04 shipped a TRIPWIRE and said so: test_validate.py pinned all three
literals and asserted the consequence through the real arbiter, so the
divergence could not silently widen or be half-closed. Its PASSING CONDITION
WAS THE BUG. Both it and validate.py's comment said to delete each other when
the divergence was closed. It is closed, so both are deleted.
THE DIVERGENCE WAS WIDER THAN ONE KEY. `maintenance_discharge_w` had the
identical three-way split (config.yaml 2000, MaintConfig 2500) and the card
named only the charge side. Closing one and leaving its twin would have
satisfied the numbers and left three sources of truth one line down, which is
the state that produced the bug. Both are closed, and so is the whole family:
all eight `maintenance_*` keys go through the same mechanism.
WHAT THE SINGLE SOURCE IS. config.yaml's `options:` block - it is what the
Supervisor reads and what the operator edits, so it wins by definition. There
is now exactly one in-code copy, `maintenance.MAINT_OPTION_DEFAULTS`, which is
TARIFF-02's `PRICE_OPTION_DEFAULTS` and SAFETY-24's `PEAK_OPTION_DEFAULTS`
pattern applied to the family that named the card - validate.py's rule 8 comment
already called that "CFG-03 read as a rule rather than as a complaint", so this
makes the rule hold where it was first broken rather than inventing a fourth
mechanism for one option family.
A MIRROR RATHER THAN A RUNTIME READ, and the reason is mechanical: the
Dockerfile copies `app/` and `run.sh` into the image and NOT config.yaml. The
running add-on cannot open the file it is configured by, so there is nothing to
read at 03:00 on a client's Pi, and a YAML-subset parser that could fail at
import is a new way for the add-on not to start. What makes the copy safe is
that test_maintenance.py pins every entry by READING the shipped file - drift is
a CI failure, not a comment.
EVERY OTHER SITE NOW DERIVES FROM IT OR HAS CEASED TO EXIST:
* MaintConfig's eight dataclass defaults are indexed out of the mirror. No
numeric literal survives in the class that held the third opinion.
* `MaintConfig.from_options()` is the ONLY place in the add-on that reads a
`maintenance_*` option. main.py's eight inline `opts.get(key, <literal>)`
calls are gone: moving the read next to the mirror means the fallback cannot
be anything but the mirror, because there is no literal in sight of it to
disagree with. It uses `key in opts` rather than truthiness, so a shipped
`false` or `0` is honoured instead of being quietly replaced by the default
- this card's own bug in a different costume.
* main.py's SECOND fallback site - the cheap-window charge floor at the
P_MAINT_SHAPE claim - reads `self.maint.cfg.charge_w` instead of re-opening
the options dict with its own literal. The Controller had already parsed
this once in __init__; asking the object that owns it cannot drift from it,
and the rate the shaping asks for can no longer be a different number from
the rate the state machine drains at on the same install.
* validate.py's rule 6 and its `maintenance_discharge_w` warning take their
fallbacks from the mirror.
WHERE THE RANGE LIVES, STATED AND CHECKED. config.yaml's `schema:` block carries
`maintenance_charge_w: int(500,5000)` - a fourth declaration site of a different
kind. It is a BOUND, not a default, so it is not this bug; but leaving the
question open is how a fifth site arrives. The decision recorded in config.yaml
and in maintenance.py is: bounds live in the schema block ONLY, because the
Supervisor is what enforces them and the Supervisor reads only that file, so a
Python copy of `int(500,5000)` would be a place to disagree and nothing else.
test_maintenance.py checks both halves of that: every mirrored key must have a
schema entry - without one the Supervisor drops the option and the add-on
silently runs on the mirror instead of the operator's value - and every shipped
default must lie INSIDE its own range, since a default the schema rejects is a
config that cannot be re-entered once it is edited. What the schema grammar
cannot express is a relation BETWEEN keys (`maintenance_charge_w` against
`max_w`), which is exactly why rule 6 is written in Python and why it does not
belong in the mirror either.
THE REPLACEMENT CHECKS, AND HOW THEY WERE VERIFIED. test_validate.py's new
section exercises the same four consumers the defect ran through, the same way:
the validator ACCEPTS a dict with every maintenance key missing; a REAL
Controller built from that same dict holds 2000 W (through main.py, not through
a regex over its source); `MaintConfig()` answers 2000 W with no dict at all;
and the real arbiter emits `-2000 W, limited by supervised(max_w)` instead of
`0 W, contradiction=True`. test_maintenance.py pins the mirror to config.yaml in
both directions - equal values, and full coverage of every `maintenance_*` key
the file ships, so a ninth key cannot arrive unmirrored - and asserts the
consumers move as a RELATION rather than against numbers, reading MaintConfig's
defaults back out of `dataclasses.fields()`.
Each new check was verified by BREAKING the thing it watches and observing red,
this project's rule:
1. config.yaml -> 1500, mirror left at 2000: test_maintenance 1 FAILED,
test_validate 4 FAILED.
2. config.yaml AND the mirror -> 1500: green again, and every consumer moved
together - MaintConfig() 1500 W, the Controller 1500 W, and the arbiter
`-1500 W, limited by maintenance(cheap-window charge)` where it had said
`-2000 W, limited by supervised(max_w)`. That is AC4: change the single
source and watch the consumers follow.
3. `charge_w: float = 2500.0` retyped into the dataclass: 2 FAILED in each of
the two files.
4. `opts.get("maintenance_charge_w", 2500)` restored in main.py: 1 FAILED,
naming the file and the literal it found.
5. `maintenance_hold_min` deleted from config.yaml's options block: 3 FAILED.
Full suite 17/17 in goodwe-addon-ci, twice, once under parallel load.
Stale prose that asserted the now-closed divergence as current is corrected in
app/watchdog.py, test_watchdog.py and test_peakguard.py - watchdog.py's example
still uses 1500 W, but because the point of the example is a charge strictly
inside the ceiling, not because 2500 is what ships.
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>
|
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
83911ed637 |
SAFETY-20: measure the freeze rail against the reachable ceiling, not max_w
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m37s
SAFETY-18's conjunction needs `abs(commanded_w) >= 0.95 * max_w`, but the
emitted command is clipped to the setpoint device's own [dev_min, dev_max]
range as well as to max_w - in clamp_to_rating()'s second stage and again as
the arbiter's `device` P_SAFETY limit claim. Measured on the shipped predicate
at the ticket's numbers, max_w 5000 on a +-4700 W inverter:
looks_frozen(unchanged_s=3600, commanded_w=4700, max_w=5000) -> False
The command is pinned at the hardware's rail, the meter has been frozen for an
hour, and term 2 is unsatisfiable by construction because 4700 < 4750. Any
device rating at or below 0.95 * max_w disarms the conjunction outright, and
the status page then printed `armed (... command is over 4750 W)` - a guard
that cannot fire, advertising that it can, which is the failure SAFETY-15,
SAFETY-19 and validate.py rule 5 all exist to prevent.
The rail is now measured against min(max_w, |dev_min|, |dev_max|), through a
new `rail_ceiling_w()` threaded into looks_frozen(), FreezeWatchdog.evaluate()
and both call sites in main.py. An unread rating leaves the old behaviour
exactly, and correctly: hass.limits() returns None whenever ESPHome is not up,
and on that path no device clamp is applied either, so max_w really is the
ceiling. A rating larger than max_w cannot raise the rail - this is a min(),
not a swap.
THE DELIBERATE CHOICE, since SAFETY-03 has landed. The arithmetic was kept
rather than substituting Decision.i_clamped / Decision.clamped. i_clamped is
the integrator bound (control.py:208, `bounded != i_w`), not "the command is
at the device rating", and `clamped` is the max_w output bound, unreachable on
a default install - neither is the device rail. More decisively, both answer
"did the LOOP ask for more than a bound", while the rail term asks "is the
command standing at the ceiling", and those coincide only when the loop is the
claimer that won. A maintenance SET or a peak-guard floor reaches the ceiling
through arbiter LIMIT claims with no clamp engaging at all, so a boolean rail
would go False exactly during a maintenance phase running against a frozen
meter - which freeze.py's own docstring names as the same fault with a worse
actuator behind it. The predicate is also public with two call sites that pass
DIFFERENT command values (self.target, and `standing` = last_write); a
per-cycle boolean cannot be passed per call site, so substituting it would
have silently decided the pre-clamp-versus-wire question that PM recorded as
still open. AC 1 governs, and it is satisfied literally.
The smaller of the two device bounds, not a per-sign pair. A per-sign rail is
tighter and is not wrong, but it is two rails needing two coverage verdicts on
a status row that carries one number, and the only configuration that
distinguishes them is refused at startup anyway. The symmetric ceiling can only
lower the rail, which widens term 2 rather than disarming it; term 1 carries
the whole no-false-positive argument and is untouched.
A ceiling of 0 W is NOT COVERED, not "armed at 0 W". A device that can command
nothing in one direction would make `abs(command) >= 0` true of every command
including a parked one - term 2 degenerately TRUE, collapsing the conjunction
into the bare unchanged_s > N threshold TEL-05 refused for false-tripping at
this controller's own operating point. rail_unreachable() returns the reason,
looks_frozen() stays silent, and the page uses the NOT COVERED row the
unsupported-transport case already has - a second reason to use that surface,
not a new mechanism.
AC 4, decided rather than assumed: NO NEW validate.py RULE. The configuration
is max_w above the device rating, which rule 2 (CFG-01) already refuses on the
identical predicate, re-run by run_control() once the real rating is known:
validate_startup_config({... max_w: 5000}, -4700, 4700)
-> ['max_w is 5000 W but number.sp accepts at most 4700 W - THE DEVICE
WINS ...']
A rail-specific rule would fire on a strict subset of that (0.95 * max_w >
dev_max implies max_w > dev_max) and could never be the rule that stopped a
start. The residue is the state where hass.limits() answered (None, None) -
ESPHome not up at boot, range checks skipped rather than guessed at, rating
never re-read - and there is nothing to refuse there by construction, which is
why the answer is a runtime row. Recorded in validate.py's "deliberately not
refused" list and pinned by four checks in test_validate.py, so the decision's
premise goes red if rule 2 is ever softened back to a warning.
HOW REACHABLE THIS IS, stated rather than glossed. Because rule 2 refuses the
configuration whenever the rating is known, min(max_w, dev_max) IS max_w on
every install that reaches the control loop with a rating it could read, and
this change is arithmetically dead there. That is clamp.py's argument for its
own second stage word for word: the case where it bites is the case where the
startup gate did not run or no longer holds, and a guard that quietly assumes
the gate ran is a guard that reports armed in exactly the state it cannot fire
in.
Verified by breaking it, per this project's rule. Reverting rail_w() to bare
max_w fails nine checks; deleting the NOT COVERED handling fails five. The one
that mattered: shipping the corrected predicate while NOT passing the rating
from check_meter_frozen() left the entire suite green, because nothing graded
the caller - so test_freeze.py part 5b now drives the real cycle() on a +-4700 W
device and asserts on the notification that leaves the process, and the
unwiring mutation fails three checks there. The peak-guard call site's wiring
is still ungraded (behind p1_enabled, needs a fed averager for `frozen` to have
any observable consequence) and that gap is named in the file rather than
implied.
Full suite: 15/15 in goodwe-addon-ci.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
504e8daac3 |
TEST-17: grade the status page's peak row at a stated month, not at today's
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m35s
release/1.0 went red at 00:00 on 2026-09-01 on a commit nobody had touched. `Controller.checks()` read the capacity-tariff peak with `self.peak.peak()` - no argument - so tariff.py resolved the month from `datetime.now()`, while test_tariff.py section 10 banks its quarter at the fixed fixture 2026-08-30. From 1 September the page was correctly asked for September, correctly answered NO_RECORD, and the row read "no completed quarter recorded yet" - a string containing no "peak", which the section's own filter required. Four checks failed. ISOLATED BY MOVING ONLY THE CLOCK. Same commit, same shipped-deps image, libfaketime: green at 2026-08-30, four failures at 2026-09-01. Identical at |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
9234016419 |
Merge release/1.0 (OPT-04) into SAFETY-24, and fix one grader the merge broke
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m36s
OPT-04 landed after the previous rebase. Conflicts were CHANGELOG.md and one IMPORT LINE in validate.py; both refusal blocks and both option sets survive untouched, and DOCS.md, main.py and config.yaml auto-merged. ⚠️ AND THE MERGE BROKE A CHECK THAT NEITHER CARD COULD HAVE SEEN ALONE. test_peakguard.py graded "the first `.decide(` call in main.py" and asserted there was exactly one. That was true when SAFETY-24 was written; OPT-04 added `arbitrage.decide(...)`, so the merged tree had two and the assertion failed. It failed loudly rather than grading the wrong call - the guard did its job - but it cannot ship red. Fixed by selecting the call by QUALIFIED NAME (`peakguard.decide`) instead of by position, and requiring exactly one of THAT. Other modules may now call their own decide(); this grader can no longer be moved by one of them. Verified still discriminating: a decoy `peakguard.decide` added to main.py turns it red on 7 assertions, and the `maintenance_soc_floor` swap still turns it red on 6. Also folded in the review's wording finding. An assertion read "a CONTROLLER whose SoC entity does not answer hands decide() None" while driving no Controller. The wiring property is stronger than the one claimed, and is now asserted on the SERVICE CALL: a Controller with no SoC never reaches the guard at all, because `inputs_ok` is False and cycle() stops at the safety claim first - so a `float(soc or 100)` defaulting line above the call site cannot disarm the floor. The original decide()-level check is kept, reworded to say what it actually grades. Full suite green on the merged tree: 15 files. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
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 |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
e709554857 |
SAFETY-24: an energy floor under the peak guard's forced discharge
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m29s
SAFETY-07 can command a discharge to hold a billed quarter down, and nothing below it consulted the state of charge. On the 2026-08-20 replay it asks for 878 Wh in a day. Relying on the BMS is not absurd - it is a real floor and it works - but it is the pack's protection rather than the operator's, and a month of aggressive quarters leaves the battery repeatedly at that cut-out with no EMS-side record of why. The first symptom is a pack never available when wanted, which is indistinguishable from the SoC drift MAINT-01 exists to correct. decide() now takes soc and soc_floor, both required and neither defaulted, and discharge_permitted() is the one place the question is answered. Above the floor nothing changes. At or below it the guard files a 0 W floor instead of a sized one - one-directional, so charging stays blocked and no discharge is capped - and reports floor_limited with the reason it bound. It is not a trip: every stop in 11.2's table still outranks the claim, and the floor is never negative, so 9.1's asymmetry survives as a property of the object (0 negative floors over 1296 swept combinations, SoC included). The SoC is graded only after `wanted > 0` is established, so it is never evaluated where it governs nothing. An unreadable SoC is floor-limited, not a full battery - a full battery is exactly the value that would disarm the floor, and this project shipped that defaulting once already. Failing to shave is not silent: one notification per episode (goodwe_peak_soc_floor), distinct from the saturation alarm because the two ask for opposite operator actions, plus its own status row and an action-log line. Verified by replay. The 2026-08-20 capture is driven against a modelled pack sized from the day's own measured appetite, so it genuinely exhausts: without the floor it reaches the BMS cut-out and holds there for 1227 guard cycles; with it the pack stops at 20.0 % and never touches the BMS. The energy withheld equals the energy between the two floors to within one cycle at the rail. The honest half is reported too - the worst quarter goes 4338 W -> 5030 W, because a floor-limited guard shaves less on purpose. Two new options, mirrored once in peakguard.PEAK_OPTION_DEFAULTS (TARIFF-02's pattern), imported by validate.py and main.py rather than typed as literals and pinned to config.yaml by a check that reads the file - so CFG-03 still tracks three places. validate.py rule 8 refuses peak_soc_floor <= bms_soc_floor at startup, in CFG-01/MAINT-04's manner. maintenance_soc_floor is deliberately not reused and not renamed: it is a drain target, not a spend limit, and the rename is recorded as a decision to revisit if a third floor appears. Eleven mutations of the shipped source were run against the checks; all eleven go red and there are no survivors. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
c2ed509565 |
Merge release/1.0 (TARIFF-03) into SAFETY-07
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m12s
The anticipated conflict again, and only it: both cards prepend to CHANGELOG.md's Unreleased section. Both entries kept, SAFETY-07 first. app/main.py and DOCS.md auto-merged, so the overlap claim on #18 still holds - config.yaml and validate.py remain untouched by this card even after TARIFF-02 and TARIFF-03 widened both. Full suite green on the merge result, test_price.py and test_static_tariff.py included. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
2d570d84ce |
SAFETY-07 review: defend the three wiring mutations that survived
The reviewer's finding was correct and the shape of it matters: everything the
first cut graded was in peakguard.py, and grading the module is not the same as
grading the guard. Three one-line changes to main.py's CALL SITE left all twelve
suites green while a default install parked at 0 W in the quarter that sets the
month's bill.
B2 was the serious one. My own comment described that defect - "that entity is
optional and empty on a default install, so until now the suspension could not
fire on the site that needed it" - and nothing could regress it. A comment that
documents a fix nobody can test is the same shape as a corrected comment nobody
tests, which this project has already been caught by once.
WHAT CHANGED
The suppression conjunction moved out of main.py and into
peakguard.shaping_suspended(), for the reason watchdog.loop_is_following() and
freeze.looks_frozen() live where they do: the check that grades a safety
predicate must assert on THE SHIPPED EXPRESSION, not on a transcription that can
drift apart from it in silence. Its docstring carries both terms and why neither
is sufficient alone. main.py's call site now says READ THAT FUNCTION FIRST, and
records that a reviewer mutated it back to its historical broken form with every
suite staying green.
test_peakguard.py part 7 gains a section that EXECUTES the three mutations
rather than describing them. Each one is put in place on the shipped module and
the REAL Controller.cycle() is driven with it, on the dangerous fixture: a
default install (no peak_forecast_entity, so peak_fc is None and peak_at_risk is
False forever) with maintenance in its CHARGE phase, so a P_MAINT_SHAPE `hi <= 0`
limit is live, and the guard genuinely engaged on the measurement. That the
mutations are monkeypatched onto the shipped module is itself load-bearing: if
main.py inlined either expression again the patch would do nothing and these
checks would pass vacuously.
SHIPPED suspended=True loop -> 1498 W, limited by peak +1497.8 W
B1 suspended=False CONTRADICTION between limits 0.0 W
B2 suspended=False CONTRADICTION between limits 0.0 W
B2b (forecast term dropped instead) - caught by its own check
B3 is graded three ways, because the single-cycle form is only INFLATED and the
failure is what happens on the next cycle:
* the value main.py actually hands decide() is recorded off the real call, with
the measured battery at 0 W and the command standing at +3000 W;
* the one-cycle difference is asserted to be exactly the standing command - the
whole defect in one line, watts that were asked for and never arrived counted
as if they had;
* both forms are then run forward against the REAL controller's own projection
with an inverter that never follows:
intent-sized floor 4482 5000 5000 5000 ... SATURATED at cycle 2
delivered-power floor 1482 1482 1482 1482 ... stationary
* and the call site is graded on parsed syntax, so a rename cannot quietly
reintroduce it: `decide(batt_w=...)` must unparse to `self.batt`.
SAFETY-24 is now named in peakguard.py, in its own section, with the number that
makes it real - 878 Wh of forced discharge on the 2026-08-20 replay - and the
statement that this must not go to a client install before that ticket lands. A
ticket nobody can find from the code is a ticket nobody reads before shipping.
RED AND GREEN
Fifteen mutations run against the shipped modules, each reverted after: the six
new wiring ones (B1, B2, B2b, B3, B3b, and deleting the SAFETY-24 pointer) and
the eight from the first round, re-run to confirm they still bite. All fifteen
turn test_peakguard.py red. Full suite green, test_price.py and TARIFF-03's
included.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
303525cfc5 |
TARIFF-03: static day/night and fully-fixed tariffs, first-class
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 2m43s
§9.2 puts a large share of the Belgian installed base on a static profile, and
an EMS that only works under dynamic pricing is an EMS for a minority. A new
`static_profile` option describes a two-period day/night tariff - or a single
fixed price - and app/static_tariff.py turns it into the same canonical
{start, eur_per_kwh, provisional} series the fetched providers emit.
Not a sixth provider plugin, for two mechanical reasons. capabilities() is a
classmethod, so a plugin's PriceProduct is fixed when the class is written -
but §9.2 makes STATIC and FIXED two different products and which one a site is
on is a property of the operator's data; StaticProfile.product derives it from
the number of distinct prices. And the plugin framework exists to stop a
FETCHED figure being marked up twice, which a number typed as all-in cannot be.
So the profile sits where §11.4 already says it does - under the providers, as
the fallback. Configured product and feed-is-down are one generator differing
in one flag, so the degradation path cannot rot unused.
"No arbitrage" is a type. TariffPlan.arbitrage() returns a variant whose
ALLOWED arm carries the spread and the cheapest/dearest hours and whose REFUSED
arm carries a reason and nothing else - .spread_eur_kwh on a refusal raises
rather than answering 0.0, so an optimiser cannot compute a trade from one.
Four refusals, all derived: peak guard holding, no price data, plan
provisional, or the series is FLAT. The last is AC2: a fixed tariff disables
arbitrage by arithmetic, not by matching on an enum. peak_guard_active is a
required keyword argument, so §10.1's priority 2 over 3 cannot be skipped.
Time-window shifting reaches the one shiftable load that exists: main.py's
cheap-window flag falls back to the static profile, and the UI gained a Tariff
row. Cheap is STRICTLY below the seven-day mean - `<=` would call every hour of
a flat tariff cheap, and 48 h taken on a Friday is two-thirds weekend.
A profile must tile every day type exactly once, checked at startup; a gap is
refused with the range named rather than filled in. `22:00-07:00 mon-fri` does
not cover Saturday morning, and that trap is what the check catches.
validate.py rule 7's stated reason expired exactly as TARIFF-02 predicted: the
test_price.py section 12 tripwire went red naming static_tariff.py. The message
now says what is true instead, and the tripwire is re-aimed rather than removed
- consumer set pinned, expired phrase asserted gone. Rule 7 also grew a second
refusal for static_profile alongside the HA price pair, the same silent-loser
conflict and a live one.
CFG-03 is not widened: static_profile went into price.py's PRICE_OPTION_DEFAULTS
- the one in-code mirror pinned to config.yaml by a check - and the new module
carries no defaults dict of its own.
Measured on the two committed days of this house's real P1 meter. 2026-08-20
(Thursday): 15.220 kWh imported, 9.606 day / 5.614 night, EUR 4.7185 under
day/night vs EUR 4.6725 flat, shifting saves EUR 0.8069 = 9.606 kWh x the
0.0840 spread, derived twice. 2026-08-23 (Sunday): 0.728 kWh, all of it
night-priced, which is the weekend row proving itself. §17 names six Belgian
scenarios; this is the seventh, and it is two days rather than a season - the
file says so rather than implying an annual figure.
All 12 suites green. Eleven mutations of static_tariff.py were each caught by
at least one check.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
616b62d3e9 |
SAFETY-07: cap the loop before it sets the month's billed capacity peak
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m7s
TARIFF-01 measured the quarter and said the consumer would be this card. It is
one new module, app/peakguard.py, and one new claim.
THE MECHANISM. Every cycle the guard projects the open 900 s block to its
end-of-interval average - from P1 telegrams only, never from the command - and
compares it to a ceiling. Over the ceiling it files ONE arbiter claim: a lower
bound on the setpoint at P_PEAK. That single shape is both behaviours 10.1 asks
for, a hard clamp on charging and pre-emptive discharge, and it cannot cap
discharge or export, because a floor cannot. 9.1's asymmetry becomes a property
of the object instead of a rule to remember.
excess = 900 x (projected - ceiling) / seconds remaining
floor = MEASURED battery power + excess
The 900/remaining gain is 1.0 at the top of the quarter and grows, so the guard
is gentlest where its projection rests on the least evidence. The floor is sized
from delivered battery power, not the standing command: a floor built on intent
re-adds its own unmet ask every cycle and winds to the rail whenever the inverter
fails to follow, and test_peakguard.py part 1 shows the two diverging.
IT TRIPS, AND THE CAPTURES DECIDED THAT. On the healthy reference day it engages
on zero of 95 quarters. The action is level-triggered, unlatched and re-derived
every cycle, so a false engagement costs one cycle of discharge rather than a
parked battery - the cost SAFETY-18 could not bound and this one can. Replayed on
2026-08-20 the billed quarter goes from 5029.8 W, above the inverter's own 5000 W
rating, to 3485 W, under the soft limit and without saturating. Quarters under
the limit across both committed days: 189/190 -> 190/190. Two days is not thirty
and AC 3 remains TARIFF-01's open item.
BLINDNESS IS CHECKED BEFORE THE PROJECTION IS GRADED, and it is a different
action. A fresh averager projects a confident 0 W, which is under every ceiling
there is; a meter gap longer than meter_max_age_s makes the projection read LOW;
a frozen meter reading export projects 0 W at full coverage. All three become a
floor of 0 W - no importing while the billed quantity is unobservable - which is
one-directional and cannot cost pack energy. That is the backstop SAFETY-18 could
not be: its alarm arrives at 300 s of a 900 s quarter and commands nothing. The
frozen term is freeze.looks_frozen() itself, on this cycle's standing command.
THE CEILING IS peak_cap_w, RAISED ONLY BY AN OBSERVED READING. NO_RECORD and
NOT_OBSERVED both leave it at the cap, so an unreadable peak store makes the
guard stricter and never looser. The gate is the reading's STATE, not whether a
number happens to be attached: today a `peak_w is not None` test behaves
identically, and depending on that coincidence is how a future last-known-peak
field would raise the ceiling off a read that failed. headroom_w() is
deliberately not consumed - cap minus peak turns a zero peak into FULL freedom.
TWO DEFECTS FOUND BUILDING IT, both in the interaction rather than the
arithmetic, and both caught by running the thing rather than by reading it:
* A LIMIT does not out-vote another LIMIT. arbiter.resolve() applies every
limit at or above the winner's priority and takes the most restrictive, so
the peak floor (lo >= 0) and the maintenance charge-only shaping (hi <= 0)
resolved to a CONTRADICTION and 0 W - the battery parked in the exact quarter
it should shave. Fixed by suppression, not priority: main.py drops the
maintenance shaping while the guard is engaged, which is what that branch
already did for the optional peak_forecast_entity - a key empty on a default
install, so until now the suspension could not fire on the site that needed
it.
* Thresholding `excess > 0` released the claim the instant it began working,
producing seventeen engage/release cycles in one 900 s quarter and leaving
that quarter 49 W over the limit it had spent fifteen minutes holding. That
is 10.2's oscillation. The threshold is now the floor itself, which is the
same arithmetic read as a level rather than as a switch.
PeakTracker.project() no longer reads a private name with a default.
getattr(averager, "_last_net", 0.0) failed quiet AND disarming - a rename credits
0 W held, the projection reads low, the money guard does not engage.
QuarterAverager.held_net_w is a documented public property now, read without a
default, and Projection carries it. TEST-13 item 4.
NO NEW OPTION AND NO FOURTH DEFAULTS SITE. The ceiling is peak_cap_w, the
coverage threshold is meter_max_age_s, the freeze predicate is meter_freeze_s,
and the achievable discharge comes from max_w and the device rating. config.yaml
and validate.py are untouched; 14's capacity_peak_limit_kw stays declined. On
meter_source: off there are no telegrams, so the guard does not run at all and
the status page says NOT COVERED - running it there blinded it permanently and
stopped every legacy install from charging, which is what the first cut did until
test_clamp.py's export case caught it.
test_peakguard.py: eight parts, all figures derived from the shipped config.yaml
and the committed captures. Part 8 runs seven one-line defeats of the guard and
reports which check bites; six do, and the seventh is reported as NOT caught,
because max(cap, peak) makes a zero peak the strictest ceiling there is and there
is nothing left to catch.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
f4914a174a |
TARIFF-01: measure the month's billed peak, and make it survive a restart
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 2m38s
The 15-minute block average was already built and unwired. p1.QuarterAverager computes clock-aligned 900 s blocks, time-weighted over irregular telegram spacing, offtake-only and per-phase; P1Ingest.blocks was a 96-entry list in memory that a restart erased. So this is the persistence and the monthly reduction, not a second accumulator - a second one would be a second source of truth for the exact quantity the money depends on. BLOCKS, NOT A SLIDING WINDOW. The card says "rolling"; 9.1 bills "the highest 15-minute average offtake" and states its own worked case per QUARTER - one 4998 W quarter moving a monthly peak from 4832 to 5013 W. A trailing window reports a peak the meter never bills, and reports it HIGH: a burst straddling :15 fills the window completely while contributing to two block averages at partial weight. DELIVERED, NOT INTENDED. tariff.py only ever sees P1Sample - the meter's own reading - and never a setpoint. SAFETY-20's open question does not arise for a capacity tariff: the utility integrates the current that flowed. AN UNREADABLE STORE IS NOT A ZERO PEAK. peak() answers OBSERVED / NO_RECORD / NOT_OBSERVED with peak_w None unless observed, which is riglock.holder()'s fix applied to something that spends money. A peak read as 0 W hands SAFETY-07 maximum headroom and disarms the guard at the moment its own storage breaks. Restart mid-block resumes the accumulator through a new snapshot()/restore() pair, checkpointed every 15 s and cleared in the same breath as a block close. The held sample keeps its ORIGINAL timestamp, so an outage is integrated under the same max_hold_s rule a running process would apply. quarter_start is the primary key and a re-bank may only ever RAISE a figure. Calendar months are LOCAL: a quarter starting 22:15 UTC on 31 August bills in September. No new option (the limit is the existing peak_cap_w), so config.yaml and validate.py are untouched and CFG-03 is not widened. No second peak entity: peak_forecast_entity stays the input to maintenance_charge_floor(), because repointing that consumer changes what moves energy and belongs to SAFETY-07. AC 3 is NOT met. It asks for 30 days of replay; two days of this house's real meter exist and are committed here. test_tariff.py part 9 replays them, reports the percentage next to the sample size in days, and asserts nothing about 95 %. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
0942228d65 |
Merge release/1.0 (SAFETY-03) into TEST-06
checks / unit (pull_request) Canceled after 0s
Two conflicts, both predicted, both mine as the later merger. app/main.py - #12 inserted `await self.check_output_clamp()` on the line immediately above `await self.check_meter_frozen()`, so its hunk abuts my comment correction. Resolved so EACH CALL CARRIES ITS OWN BOUNDARY, because the two guards do not share one: - check_output_clamp() reads `self.clamp_last`, which is None until write_setpoint() has run, so its boundary IS the write; - check_meter_frozen() grades `self.target`, assigned further up, so its boundary is the assignment. Letting my correction generalise across both would have been worse than the vague comment it replaces, because it would read as deliberate. The AST of app/main.py is identical to merged release/1.0 (+1251 bytes, all comment). test_freeze.py - #12 independently added `frozen_notes()` keyed on the same id. `notes_of()` subsumes it: same id, plus the title fallback that keeps the id's own check independently falsifiable, plus `all_notes_of()` for claims about the whole surface. THE THREE SURFACE-WIDE ASSERTIONS, DECIDED ONE AT A TIME. Measured on the merged tree: scenario surface ids freeze frozen meter, railed command 2 frozen + clamp 1 TEL-05 converged, -14.2 W 0 - 0 moving meter, a real 8 kW load 1 clamp 0 uncovered transport, no unchanged_s 1 clamp 0 - the wiring scenario STAYS SURFACE-WIDE and now asserts exactly TWO alarms with BOTH IDS NAMED. The answer to "is this still meant to raise one alarm" is no, it raises two, and a third guard has to come back to this line. That is the one assertion in the file that accounts for the controller's entire alarm output; - the CONVERGED case stays surface-wide and stays silent: at the operating point the whole add-on should have nothing to say, that is still true, and narrowing it would give away a real property; - the other two NARROW to notes_of(). The clamp alarm there is correct and is SAFETY-03's subject: a real 8 kW load does drive the loop past the rating, and an uncovered transport does not stop it. Asserting whole-surface silence would make this file fail whenever another guard correctly does its job. Each still owns the load-bearing half - THE FREEZE DETECTOR SAID NOTHING - and the surface is PRINTED so a reader sees what else fired without this file grading it. Re-verified on the merged tree: M1 RED 4, M2 RED 5, M3 RED 3 + RED 2, N6 RED 1, N3 green (correctly), N8 RED 4, R1 RED 2, R2 RED 1. All nine suites green. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
611d3dbcdf |
TEST-06 review follow-ups: two notification surfaces, the real ordering boundary, the schema bounds
1. notes_of() could not tell this guard's alarm from anybody else's. It selected by SERVICE, so against #12's app/ (which adds goodwe_output_clamp) eight assertions went red, AC1's core check among them. Blanket id-keying is not the repair and was measured, not guessed: selector vs #12's app/ id renamed by service (as committed) 8 red 1 red by id alone 3 red 6 red by id or title (shipped) 3 red 1 red all_notes_of() is the whole surface; notes_of() is this guard's, recognised by the id it should carry OR the title it writes - the `or` is what keeps the one assertion whose subject IS the id able to fail on its own. The three surface-wide claims stay surface-wide, each with a comment naming which surface it is about and why the next guard's author must decide rather than narrow them. They are the three that go red against #12, which is the correct signal. 2. The ordering comment named the wrong boundary. N3 - moving the call to immediately before write_setpoint() - is green and correctly so: self.target is assigned two lines earlier, write_setpoint() clamps only a local and can skip the write entirely. So the invariant is "after `self.target = resolution.target_w`", and the detector grades pre-clamp INTENT, not the wire. Corrected in test_freeze.py and in main.py's own note above the call (comment-only; I merge second and own the conflict). N8 - moving the call above the assignment - is RED 4. 3. The schema range's own bounds are now pinned. int(60,3600) -> int(1,86400) survived green: an operator could set meter_freeze_s: 86400 and the guard is dead with nothing red. Both bounds are re-derived rather than restated. 4. find_hwsim() crashed the whole suite on a checkout one level below the root (HERE.parents[1] -> IndexError, reproduced at C:/goodwe_controller). Guarded. And part 3 now names its transport in the summary: the rig hwsim and the stub are not equivalent - the rig path failed 1 run in 3 - so a green log has to say which one backed it. Also: the "revived transport re-rails" check is labelled a PRECONDITION like its sibling; freeze_rows() records that flipping p1_enabled exercises the row's content and never its gate; and the note about the deleted assertion is corrected - it was REDUNDANT, not undecidable. The reviewer falsified it in one line (move the hass.call above `if not fired: return`, RED 9). "I could not construct a falsifier, therefore it cannot fail" was exactly the inference this file exists to distrust. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
c040aac4b8 |
SAFETY-03: alarm when a computed setpoint exceeds the rating, do not just clip it
The clamp was never the missing half. specs.md 10.3 records an unclamped integrator climbing ~130 W per 4 s past 10 kW and reporting 14 768 W pinned at the 5 kW rail; clipped silently that is a flat, legal-looking 5000 W hold and nothing says the loop asked for three times it. write_setpoint() - the one path every write takes - now clamps to the VALIDATED max_w and reports whether the raw value differed; check_output_clamp() raises OUTPUT_CLAMP as a notification, an ERROR, an event row and a red status banner. Not a trip: the clamped value is written and the loop keeps running. The rating is max_w and nothing is min()ed at runtime - CFG-01 already refuses a max_w outside the device range at startup. The device range is applied second as defence in depth; it cannot bite after a successful validation, so if it ever does it alarms too and names the bound. No new config key. Decision grew i_clamped / clamped booleans, and that is the load-bearing part: `reason` is one string that slew-limiting and the saturation freeze overwrite, so an alarm keyed on it is silent on exactly the cycles a winding loop produces. Mutating main.py back onto the string drops the 10.3 replay from 2 engagements to 0. Distinct from saturation by construction - no shared reason code, notification id, status row or counter - and checked in the negative, after first asserting the saturation freeze really did engage. Two things found by running it rather than by reading it: a row per engagement flushed the 40-row event log and evicted SAFETY-18's own METER FROZEN? row (now coalesced per episode with an exact count), and a naive clamp turns a nan into a command at the full rating because every comparison against nan is False. test_clamp.py is new: assert-based, no framework. Six author mutations reproduced red, including "clamp kept, alarm deleted". Two of the check's own hypotheses about the freeze/clamp interaction were refused by its sweep and rewritten to what it measured. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
7aa1bd052e |
SAFETY-18: a meter frozen at a wrong-but-fresh value now raises an alarm
A meter that answers 200 OK with a stale document forever is ARRIVING on every
poll, so every freshness mechanism in the stack reads it as healthy while the
loop integrates a constant error and rails: 360/135/75 s at the live install's
max_w: 5000 for a meter frozen at 350/1000/>=3000 W. Fifteen minutes of a 5 kW
unattended import sets the month's billed capaciteitstarief peak.
The detector is a conjunction, not the bare unchanged_s threshold TEL-05
measured and rejected:
unchanged_s >= meter_freeze_s AND |command| within 5 % of max_w
Both terms already existed and were already on the status page, and they fail
for independent reasons: at the converged point the command is nowhere near the
rail, and at the rail against a real load the kWh registers move in seconds. At
the shipped 300 s the relation is structural rather than a margin - the slowest
a healthy 1 Wh register can tick and still look unchanged is 12 W, which is
inside the 15 W deadband, so the command there is parked at 0 W.
Notification only, deliberately: an HA persistent notification with a fixed
notification_id, an ERROR log line, a UI event and a red status row. No claim,
no latch, no 0 W. A false trip parks the battery; a false notification costs an
alert. Only meter_source: homewizard_local is covered - the status page says
NOT COVERED elsewhere rather than pretending the guard is armed.
DOCS.md states the capacity-tariff exposure this does NOT close: peak_cap_w caps
maintenance charging and nothing caps the loop. That cap is SAFETY-07.
test_freeze.py grades both directions and was verified by breaking what it
watches (six mutations, all red): silent over the committed 40-minute converged
capture, silent over an hour of TEL-05's low-power case where the rejected bare
threshold is shown to fire, alarming on a genuinely frozen meter driven over
real HTTP through the real HomeWizardLocalSource (the rig's own hwsim freeze
fault when reachable), silent on the same railed command against a meter that is
still moving, and asserting on the service call that leaves Controller.cycle()
rather than on the watchdog's own flag.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
e40eb0768d |
SAFETY-02: the P_PEAK assertion was pinning the test's copy of the gate
Review finding 2, and it is the same duplication `disagrees()` just removed, so
it gets the same fix rather than a follow-up card.
`following_from()` in test_watchdog.py was a TRANSCRIPTION of the gate in
main.py, carrying "keep the two in step" as an instruction - which is exactly the
arrangement that does not keep two things in step. Measured: editing the shipped
gate alone to `winner in ("loop", "peak")` left every suite green while the
watchdog went blind for the duration of every peak event. The row whose whole job
is to force whoever lands peak shaving to come and change an expectation did not
do that.
The expression is now `watchdog.loop_is_following()`, called by main.py and by
the test. One definition, two callers, same reasoning as `disagrees()`: the copy
that drifts is always the one in the harness doing the grading.
⚠️ AND EXTRACTING IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT - the drift proof still came out green
after the extraction, which is why it was worth running rather than assuming. The
realistic P_PEAK row has peak shaving asking for MORE than the loop, so the
magnitude term rejects it whatever `winner` says and masks the term under test. A
second row with peak asking for LESS makes `winner` the only deciding term. With
that row, widening the shipped gate fails two checks; without it, none.
Also enforcing the write ordering that was documented and not asserted: swapping
the two `store.set` calls passed everything. A store that fails the second write
now proves the property the ordering exists for - a crash mid-trip leaves a
reason with no latch, never a latch with no explanation. Swapping them now turns
that check red.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
cc4e88490b |
SAFETY-02 review: a latch that a restart clears is not a latch
BLOCKER. `auto` was persisted and `sign_wd.tripped` was not, so reconstructing the Controller against the same store - which is what a container restart does - brought it back ARMED, into the same fault, unattended: tripped=False, banner back to NOT READY, and it resumed commanding -1000 then -2000 W before re-tripping 180 s later. "Restart the add-on" is the first thing an operator looking at a FAILSAFE banner and a 0 W inverter will try, and under a supervisor that restarts a crashed add-on it is a loop of three-minute wrong-direction bursts. DOCS.md's "it does not clear itself" was false across a restart. `sign_tripped` and `sign_reason` are Store keys now, beside the maintenance state and for the reason store.py's own docstring gives. Written the moment the trip happens - reason first, flag second, so a crash between the two can never persist a latch with no explanation - restored in Controller.__init__, cleared only by the operator's start. The regression is covered: reverting the restore fails seven checks in test_watchdog.py. Review follow-ups, no behaviour change: - The arming gate is tested against the REAL arbiter. It is the decision the ticket turns on and it was asserted in three comment blocks and verified by nothing - every case passed `following` in as a literal. Twelve claim configurations now derive it from resolve(), including the redirect case `winner == "loop"` alone would have got wrong and the `lo` limit that raises magnitude without flipping sign. - The MQTT `status: "failsafe"` value is tested. The check that claimed to cover it restated the line above it and never touched the payload. - The worked example described a config that does not ship: at the defaults maintenance_charge_w 2500 against max_w 2000 is an arbiter contradiction and 0 W, not a -2500 W charge. Rewritten at 1500 W. The contradiction is a real pre-existing bug - a default cheap-window maintenance charge silently never happens - filed separately and deliberately not fixed here. - Forward hazard recorded at the gate: `winner == "loop"` disarms the watchdog under any higher-priority SET, and a peak-shaving strategy at P_PEAK IS grid-following in sign, so it would blind this for every peak event. - disagrees() is public so the replay harness stops carrying its own copy of the predicate it grades. - held_s takes the clock instead of reading one. - The two limits are now each stated in both places rather than one each. - The no-false-positive argument is tied to control.py's freeze permitting the command to cross zero; under the shrink-only encoding control.py records as rejected, this would false-trip on a load step. - Measured figures corrected: 93.4 % / 4212 of 17280, per-cluster 0.3/0.9/10.5/0.0, and the near-circularity of those figures is now stated rather than leaned on. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
9aed43990b |
SAFETY-02: a loop can be fresh, tracking and inside its rating and still push the wrong way
The stale-input watchdog asks whether the meter is still talking. The saturation freeze asks whether the inverter can follow. The output clamp asks whether the number is too big. A loop can pass all three while charging the battery out of the grid, because the only thing wrong is the sign. On 2026-08-20 a commercial controller did exactly that four times in one day, for up to 77 minutes at a stretch, reaching a commanded -14 768 W against a ±5000 W inverter. app/watchdog.py compares the emitted setpoint against the authoritative P1 figure and, when they oppose each other with both over 300 W for 180 s continuously, files a failsafe SET claim at P_SAFETY, commands 0 W and latches there until an operator starts control again. Validated against that day rather than against an argument: sim/replay_sign.py in the infra repo drives this module over the committed captures of both 2026-08-20 and the healthy 2026-08-23 and reaches 18 trips on the fault day - every one inside a window NOTES.md §4.7 accounts for - and 0 on the healthy day. The four episodes do share one signature: 0.3 / 0.9 / 10.5 / 0.0 % sign agreement inside them against 92.9 % healthy. Three decisions the ticket could not make: - It is DISARMED whenever the grid-following loop is not what is driving. Sign agreement is a property of a loop that follows the meter, and a maintenance grid charge opposes the meter by design - 2500 W of charge into a house drawing 500 W is +3000 W on the meter against a -2500 W command, for hours. The gate tests the emitted number, not the winning claim's name, because a limit claim can let the loop "win" and still replace its value. - The trip LATCHES. Commanding 0 W removes the command side of the comparison, so the disagreement always clears the moment the trip works. - sign_disagree_w at or above max_w is refused at startup. The arbiter never lets a command exceed max_w, so such a threshold leaves the watchdog incapable of firing while the status page still reports it armed. What it does not catch, said out loud: an inverter that ACTS opposite to its command moves the meter further the same way, leaving command and meter in agreement. That is the saturation freeze's job. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
aae74d7571 |
SAFETY-12 review: name the safety claim that could not fire, and fix two figures
Review fixes. A. test_loop.py takes 73 s, not the ~35 s claimed in three places. That number is the whole defence against a future developer deleting a slow test, so it was understated by 2x in exactly the place it matters. Corrected - and it is now ~95 s (measured 93 s), because this commit adds the scenario below rather than trimming windows to make an inconvenient number smaller. Both call sites carry an instruction to re-measure if the windows change. B. "242 checks" was test_p1's own count quoted as the total for all five suites. The real figure is 395 across the five, plus 14 here. And the finding this PR should have led with. stale_input_s and the `inputs missing -> 0 W` claim both live INSIDE cycle(), so pre-fix, on a meter whose value happened to repeat, that claim could not fire at all. Constant meter, SoC entity dying at t=4 s, one binary: pre-fix final target 220.0 W, reason 'loop -> 220 W' post-fix final target 0.0 W, reason 'safety -> 0 W' The old controller held 220 W through the whole input outage with its status line still reading loop -> 220 W, and layer 1 does not cover that on a `meter_source: off` install - no P1 age sensor is published, so the firmware has nothing to veto on, while the heartbeat keeps its watchdog fed. The pre-fix behaviour was not "holds a stale command safely"; it was a failsafe a repeating meter switched off. Asserted in test_loop.py, both halves. Three points of reasoning tightened, none of them wrong before: - the re-tune is unreachable by construction, not merely by the reset: the combined cycle rate is max(arrival rate, 1/floor), never the sum, and 1/15 s is strictly slower than the ~1/5 s arrival rate. That holds only while the floor exceeds the meter's update interval - and the schema minimum of 5 s is exactly the reference meter's interval. Flagged for validate.py, not fixed here. - the ~11 s lower bracket is not only a dropped poll: a 5.0 s poller against a 4.97 s meter beats, so about every 14 minutes the poller steps over an update entirely. Reaching 15 s takes a beat-skip AND a failed poll. - the "freshness is decided upstream" guarantee is transport-conditional. On `meter_source: off` the grid figure comes straight from hass.number() with no age gate. Running the full law is still right; the claim is narrower than it was stated. The 15 s default is not independently justified - it rests on the firmware's 30 s ingest veto and moves if that ever does. Said beside the constant. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
88cd97cc7a |
SAFETY-12: the loop thinks on a clock, not only when the number moves
run_control() ran cycle() only when the meter value differed from the previous poll. A meter that repeats a value therefore ran no control cycles at all - while the heartbeat kept re-emitting the last command and the firmware kept putting it on the wire every 2 s. Layer 1 stayed fed and every indicator read healthy, so a command computed from an old reading went on being executed through whatever the load did next. TEL-05 measured it: 70 s at a literally constant 350.0 W, 14 arrivals, zero cycles. cycle_floor_s (default 15 s) is a deadline on the GAP between cycles, reset by every cycle whichever trigger fired - not a second scheduler. On a healthy meter it never elapses, so the cycle rate and the commanded sequence are unchanged; test_loop.py asserts that by driving the real loop twice on one binary (a huge cycle_floor_s reproduces the old behaviour) and diffing the writes. 15 s is bracketed: above the ~11 s worst gap on a merely-unlucky healthy meter (~5 s arrivals, 1 s detection, one dropped poll retried on the next tick), below meter_max_age_s and the firmware's 30 s ingest veto, and equal to stale_input_s. A floor cycle runs the full law. Freshness is already decided upstream - past meter_max_age_s the reading is None, which is a P_SAFETY 0 W claim - and the integrator advances per cycle, not per second, so bounding the gap bounds the accumulation. Not a freeze detector: nothing here decides whether a repeated reading is true. DOCS.md's "accepted deviation" passage is qualified rather than deleted - the window is now bounded at 3 x cycle_floor_s instead of open-ended, and its "nothing accumulates while it is stalled" argument is called out as having covered windup and not staleness. Same correction in control.py's comment. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
547d796c5d |
CFG-01 review: widen the rule, refuse the firmware-veto case, fix the stop footgun
Review findings, all confirmed in code before changing anything. THE RULE DID NOT AUTHORISE ITS OWN BEST REFUSAL. The stated test was "makes a safety mechanism inoperative, or makes a stated limit untrue", and a blank setpoint_entity does neither - layer 1 pinning the inverter at 0 W is the failsafe WORKING, as validate.py's own text admitted. The real justification is a second, separate category: the add-on is inert and indistinguishable from healthy. Stated as (a) and (b), with each refusal tagged, and with both halves explicitly bounded - (a) is not "any two numbers that could disagree", (b) is not "anything degraded". Left implicit, the gap is where trivia-creep comes back in. meter_max_age_s ABOVE THE FIRMWARE'S VETO IS NOW REFUSED. The schema allows int(5,300); the firmware's threshold is a compile-time `max_age_s: "30"` and it trips layer 1 at `p1_age_s >= 30`. At 120 the add-on believes a 119 s reading is fresh and keeps commanding while the board has already vetoed and is holding at 0 W - healthy meter, running controller, nothing moving. Structurally identical to the max_w case, and unlike max_w it is settable on this install, so the headline behaviour finally has a live demonstration. That firmware file's own comment says a lower bound on this "belongs in CFG-01, not here". Only ABOVE is refused: below the veto the add-on gives up first, which is fail-safe and visible on its own status page. Scoped to P1 being enabled, because meter_max_age_s governs nothing otherwise. FIRMWARE_INGEST_VETO_S cannot be imported from a compile-time YAML substitution, so it carries a note on the single direction in which it can go stale - and a warning that TEL-06 is editing `ingest_stale`, so a matching integer may stop meaning a matching rule. stop= WAS A LIVE FOOTGUN. It defaulted to None, which made a Controller that cannot stop itself the DEFAULT one. On the late-refusal path that meant: log the banner, return, and leave the process alive forever with no control loop and no exit - the exact "inert but looks healthy" failure this module exists to refuse. Now required and keyword-only, so the broken shape does not construct; test_p1.py's five call sites pass an Event. That whole path had no test and no live demo. It has one now: it drives run_control() against a device that only reports a narrower range once the loop starts, and asserts it refuses, signals, returns, and writes NOTHING - plus the converse, that an agreeing device leads to real writes. This also covers the max_w composition that cannot be reached through the Supervisor on the live install. max_w <= 0 is refused. Schema-blocked in production, but validate_startup_config() is the simulation suite's entry point too, and a non-positive max_w inverts the arbiter's supervised bounds into a contradiction that reads as a safety trip rather than a typo. Verified live 2026-08-28 (backup goodwe_controller-cfg01r2-1787940076): meter_max_age_s 120 refused with a message naming 120, 30, and THE FIRMWARE WINS; no traceback; add-on restored byte-exact and running. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
fc9bd89dca |
CFG-01: refuse to start on a configuration that cannot be honoured
main.py used to read the setpoint device's own +-5000 W rating, notice a
configured max_w above it, log one WARNING, and run anyway with
write_setpoint() quietly clamping. The operator's stated ceiling was never
the real ceiling and the only evidence had scrolled off the log. specs
§1.5 is explicit that such a config is refused at startup, not survived at
runtime.
validate_startup_config() runs in amain() before the broker, the web
server or any task exists, so a refusal cannot leave half a controller
running behind a UI. It refuses exactly three things, all sharing one
property - continuing makes a safety mechanism inoperative or makes a
stated limit untrue:
1. max_w outside the setpoint device's own rating.
2. No setpoint_entity: every write is a no-op, the device rating is
never read, and the ESP32 heartbeat that holds off the layer-1
failsafe never happens. It ran, looked healthy, and moved nothing.
3. A meter_source that can never produce a reading. These were already
caught, but they only DISABLED ingestion, which leaves grid None
forever: permanent inputs-missing, 0 W, and a status page
indistinguishable from a healthy meter nobody has fed yet.
Those last predicates move into p1.validate_meter_options(), which
build_source() also calls - one definition, two callers, not two
competing validators. ha_dsmr with half its entities and mqtt_p1 with a
blank topic gained the check the other two transports already had.
Deliberately not refused, because untidy is not unsafe: integrator_max_w
above max_w (the arbiter still bounds the wire to +-max_w, so the cost is
unwind latency - warned), a missing soc/batt entity (fail-safe and
already a red NOT READY banner), a setpoint entity that has not appeared
on the Core API yet (ESPHome is routinely late; re-checked in
run_control() once the real rating arrives), and a thin meter_poll_s
margin.
A refusal is legible as one: a banner saying in words that this is
configuration and nothing is broken, numbered problems, no traceback, and
exit 78 (EX_CONFIG).
Verified on the live add-on 2026-08-28, not by reading the code: a blank
setpoint_entity and a meter_poll_s equal to meter_max_age_s each stopped
the add-on with the banner and no stack trace.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
80ebb96e7d |
Two comments asserted an entity id that has never existed
mqtt.py said the P1 age entity "must be exactly sensor.p1_sample_age_s, because SAFETY-01's firmware watchdog subscribes to that literal id", and main.py:340 repeated it. Both are wrong, and wrong in the direction that disarms a safety layer. On HA 2026.8 object_id in a discovery payload does not determine entity_id. HA composes it from the device name plus the entity name, so this one is sensor.goodwe_p1_sample_age. That is what the firmware subscribes to, that is what exists on the live system (verified 2026-08-26), and the firmware's own comment records that sensor.p1_sample_age_s never existed on any HA. The hazard is not the stale name itself, it is that two shipped artefacts disagreed about a safety-critical id while sounding certain. A reader who trusted these comments would have "corrected" the firmware to a name that resolves to nothing - and the failure is silent, because has_state() simply stays false forever and the ingest guard never arms. The firmware calls that out as the shape that FAILS SILENTLY AND LOOKS CORRECT. The comment now says what actually determines the id, and states plainly that renaming the device or the entity's friendly name changes the composed id and disarms the guard. It also cross-references TEL-06, since the guard reads this sensor's value rather than its arrival and so cannot fire for a dead publisher. Found in a backlog audit, as the substance behind PKG-02's premise: the real coupling between firmware and add-on is names, not versions. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
4d41b0a79e |
TEL-05 review follow-ups: show unchanged_s, name a timeout, keep the poll task alive
Four follow-ups on the reviewed and approved TEL-05 work. Additive; no shipped behaviour changes except the two failure paths below. 1. unchanged_s had no operator surface. DOCS.md told a reader "the transport tracks it as unchanged_s" and there was nowhere to look: main.py built the transport, scheduled run(), and never read the object again. The status page now shows it on the healthy P1 line. Still NOT thresholded and NOT folded into the age - that refusal was reviewed and upheld, because at the converged -10 W this controller aims for a 1 Wh register needs ~6 minutes to move, so any limit false-trips at the target operating point. The whole argument for leaving it to a human requires the human being able to see it. 2. The "equivalent mutant" note on the content_type guard was wrong, and the comment is downgraded to say so. web.Response(text=...) defaults to text/plain, so the fake meter CAN serve valid JSON under the wrong mimetype. Test added; shipped behaviour was already correct. 3. A timed-out poll logged an empty reason: str(asyncio.TimeoutError()) is "", so the status page read "last error:" and then nothing, on a hung meter, at the moment the battery had just gone to 0 W. Falls back to the class name. Note str(err), not `err or ...` - an exception object is always truthy. 4. submit() sat outside the try in poll_once() and run() had no except, so a raise would kill the poll task permanently and SILENTLY - safe (the age climbs, the controller commands 0 W) but indistinguishable from a dead meter. Both wrapped; poll_s is already the retry cadence, so no backoff. Also a comment at the parse_homewizard range(phases) slice: a 3-phase meter configured as 1-phase understates the capacity-tariff figure. Filed separately, not fixed here. 242 checks in test_p1.py (236 before, 6 new). test_control 55, test_arbiter 18, test_maintenance 21, all untouched and green. Each new check proved non-vacuous: six mutations, six named reds, no suite aborts, sources restored byte-identical. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
4bd659c499 |
TEL-01 review fixes: stop the age sensor tripping installs that have no meter
T-1, and it was a fleet-wide trip to zero. publish() emitted p1_age unconditionally, and published_age_s counts from P1Ingest.__init__ when no sample has ever arrived. With meter_source defaulting to off, every existing install would have published sensor.p1_sample_age_s climbing without bound; the ESP32 does `has_state() && state >= max_age_s` and forces the layer-1 failsafe, so each of them would have pinned its inverter at 0 W within 30 s. Exactly the opposite of the zero-regression the off default was for. The key is now omitted from the payload AND from MQTT discovery when P1 is off, so the entity does not exist at all - which is the status quo, and what has_state() is testing for. The predicate is one function, is_enabled(), because the grid reading, the task start and the discovery announcement have to agree or this comes back. T-2, connect no longer manufactures a sample. get_states returns whatever HA currently holds, which after a Core restart is a RestoreEntity value of unknown age; stamping it with ingest_ts=now reset the age and reported a fresh meter that could have been dead for an hour. run()'s own docstring already said a reconnect must emit nothing - the code disagreed with it, and a test asserted the violation. The cache is still primed, so the first real state_changed builds a complete sample; the age just stays honest until one arrives. T-3, gaps are no longer filled with the last held value. The averager held a sample forward across any interval, so a meter dying at 5 kW and returning ten minutes later credited 5 kW x 600 s to the capacity-tariff accumulator - a fabricated peak on a permanent record. The hold is capped at max_age_s: past that the stretch is walked so block boundaries still land correctly, but nothing accumulates and elapsed does not grow, which is what finally makes the comment about a gap dragging the billed average down true. Same threshold for control and billing: a reading too old to steer by is too old to bill by. T-4, the out-of-order/duplicate guard is covered. It was untested, and the reason is worth recording: the obvious assertion passes without the guard, because the negative interval is separately refused by the covered > 0 test. What the guard prevents is the timestamp REWIND, which only shows up one sample later as a re-integrated window. The test now goes one sample later. T-6, DOCS was wrong about latency. meter_max_age_s and stale_input_s stack, so meter death to 0 W is 45 s and not 30. Documented as a table with both clocks. Also documented the T-5 asymmetry rather than papering over it: the age measures arrival, not change, so a stuck MQTT bridge republishing its last telegram still looks fresh. Correct on ha_dsmr, not detectable on mqtt_p1 without a change-detector. Written up as a known limit. Writing the T-1 test caught a second defect in the test itself: it recorded only MQTT topics, and object_id lives in the payload, so "the age sensor is not announced" had been passing for the wrong reason. test_p1.py: 99 -> 122 checks. 14 mutations run, all 14 red, files restored byte-identical - including one per fix above. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
f47f1f0129 |
TEL-01: P1 ingestion, with the derivation and the age the EMS owns
A Belgian P1 meter publishes two UNSIGNED registers, not one signed figure. Until now the add-on asked the installer to bridge that gap with a template sensor, which put the sign convention of the whole control loop in a text box. This moves it into the EMS: net = import - export, derived once, in one place, with a test that fails if anyone inverts it. Two transports behind one contract, chosen by `meter_source`: the HA WebSocket subscribing to the DSMR integration's entities, and MQTT on a configurable topic. Everything downstream reads P1Ingest, so switching is a config edit. `meter_source: off` is the default and keeps the existing meter_entity path, so no installed system changes until it opts in. The other half is the timestamp. Every accepted sample is stamped at ingest with a monotonic clock, `meter_max_age_s` is applied to it, and the age is published as sensor.p1_sample_age_s for the ESP32's stale-input watchdog. That entity is recomputed against the clock every second rather than only when a telegram lands, because HA pushes state only on change: a meter frozen at a constant reading emits nothing and looks, to anything watching the value, exactly like a meter that has died. The age tells them apart. Deliberately absent: any fallback to an inverter-side power figure. The inverter's own AC power correlates 0.998 with battery power and 0.09 with the real meter, so failing over to it means regulating against your own output. A gap stays a gap - a reconnect emits no synthetic sample, and a rejected telegram never resolves to 0 W or refreshes the timestamp. Quarter-hour averages are time-weighted over clock-aligned blocks rather than a mean of samples, so a cadence change cannot bias the capacity-tariff figure, and only offtake is accumulated so a quarter of pure export averages to 0 kW. Per-phase import is kept separately: on an unbalanced three-phase load the phase sum and the connection net are different numbers, and only one of them is billed. test_p1.py: 99 checks, runnable with a bare interpreter and no meter. Includes an end-to-end run of the HA transport against a fake Home Assistant websocket. Stacked on SAFETY-04; nothing here touches control.py. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
e46175559b |
SAFETY-04 review fixes: the freeze deadlocked, the bound was too loose
S-1. The frozen branch admitted a correction only if it shrank |i_w|. That is unsatisfiable for BOTH signs of error whenever |correction| > 2*|i_w|, i.e. whenever the integrator is near zero, so the loop stopped moving and the freeze could never clear - it clears when the inverter tracks, and not tracking is what saturation means. Measured: 0 W held into a 2 kW import indefinitely, where release/1.0 recovers on the next cycle. Re-encoded as the same asymmetric rule the output freeze has always used: may not wind further in the direction it is already pushing, may fall, cross zero or reverse. Same interpretation, an encoding that cannot deadlock. S-2. integrator_max_w defaulted to 1.5x max_w, which ADDED windup: in release/1.0 the accumulator was the post-clamp command and could never pass the rail. Default is now "follow max_w" (config 0 = unset). Measured on the 4000 W load-drop sim, first cycle after the drop: 1000 W at the new default, 1800 W at 3000. DOCS row inverted - the useful direction is below max_w, and the 14 768 W anecdote is a vendor controller, not evidence about this code. S-3. The claim that i_w=None preserved release/1.0 exactly was false, because the S-1 gate ran regardless of seeding. It is true again, and now asserted rather than asserted-about: 3024-case exhaustive comparison against a transcription of the old law, over both freeze states, both signs and either side of the deadband. Added the carried-i_w convergence/overshoot sim that the shipped configuration was missing. S-4. Cycles are distinct meter values, not seconds: cycle() runs only when the meter reading changes, so the window has no wall-clock bound. Comment and DOCS corrected; the stall is detection latency, not a windup hazard, because the same condition stalls the whole loop. test_control.py: 33 -> 41 checks, all passing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
37bac79ad8 |
SAFETY-04: clamp the integrator, not only the output
The loop was in velocity form: the accumulator WAS the commanded power, so "clamp the integrator" and "clamp the output" were the same line of code and could not be set apart. This makes the accumulator an explicit carried value (`i_w`), bounds it with its own `integrator_max_w`, and keeps the output clamp where it was. Killing either mechanism now still leaves the other holding - which is the point of the ticket, and what the new regression test asserts. Freeze semantics: while saturated the integrator may unwind but not wind further. A strict freeze would strand the command at whatever it reached, because the condition that releases it is the inverter tracking again, and not tracking is exactly what saturation means. The integrator is re-seeded from the arbiter's actual output whenever the loop did not get what it asked for, so entering any failsafe (all of which resolve to 0 W) zeroes it, and the first cycle after release does not dump the stale period as power. test_control.py: 24 -> 33 checks, all passing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
5184a2cfc2 |
Rest the meter just below zero, not at zero
The deadband is a one-way ratchet: any resting point inside it holds indefinitely. Import and export are separate registers on the meter, so a loop resting at +14 W bills 0.34 kWh/day while behaving perfectly. target_grid_w (default -10 W) moves that residue onto the export register. Worst billed rest point drops from 15 W to under 5 W. Behaviour is unchanged at target_grid_w: 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
017b798fe6 |
Precedence arbiter: one rule instead of an if/else ladder
Two controllers writing one actuator is the failure this system exists to
avoid. "Exactly one writer" was true, but only as a convention held up by
careful reading - which does not survive an EV charger and a heat pump wanting
the same battery.
Strategies now return claims and arbiter.py resolves them:
highest-priority `set` wins (none at all means 0 W), then every `limit` whose
priority is >= that set's applies, most restrictive first; contradictory
limits command 0 W and are flagged as the bug they are.
The second clause is the whole point. "Money outranks maintenance" used to be a
hand-written exception inside a Jinja template; it is now a consequence of the
priorities - the charge-only limit binds the loop but cannot bind a
higher-priority peak claim.
Also: maintenance shaping moved out of control.py, which is a controller again
and not a policy engine; the loop now tracks the arbiter's actual output rather
than its own last wish, so it does not jump when it regains control; and every
decision explains itself ("loop -> 0 W, limited by maintenance(charge-only)")
in the UI and the log.
19 new assertions in test_arbiter.py, each one a precedence question someone
will eventually ask in the field. Deployed to the reference site as 0.2.0 and
holding grid within a few watts of zero.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016NckgXecasQb2eSsPYNSW6
|
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
594f8f9fc9 |
Six silent failures found by installing this on a live system
Migrated the reference site off the YAML packages and onto the add-on. Every bug below presented identically: the add-on starts, logs "started", serves its UI, and cannot do its job. - run.sh needs #!/usr/bin/with-contenv sh. s6-overlay sanitises the environment for services, so a plain shebang means SUPERVISOR_TOKEN is absent and every Core API call is 401 - while homeassistant_api: true makes permissions look granted. Startup now prints the token length and probes the API. - Supervisor keys the image by config.yaml `version`, so rebuilding without a bump reuses the old image. Two fixes appeared not to work because of it. - Alpine is musl and has no aiohttp wheel on PyPI; deps now come from apk so nothing compiles on a client's Pi. - Alpine ships paho-mqtt 1.x, which has no CallbackAPIVersion. That raised at construction and took the control loop down with it - so MQTT setup is now wrapped too. Observability must never be able to stop the controller. - MQTT discovery is published from on_connect: paho silently drops QoS-0 publishes issued before the CONNACK, so the previous code announced nothing while logging "MQTT connected". - Repeated failures now log once a minute. Six warnings a second rolled the log buffer and destroyed the startup diagnostics needed to find the 401. - auto_start could never fire, because the store's defaults always supplied auto: False for the fallback to find. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016NckgXecasQb2eSsPYNSW6 |
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
0a1e61dbc9 |
Packaged as a Home Assistant add-on, with a field guide
Turns the reference RS485 controller into something a technician can install at a client site: a typed config form instead of YAML, an ingress UI that names misconfiguration in words, and persistent state that cannot be broken by a timezone. Why an add-on rather than YAML packages or blueprints: - Blueprints cannot create helpers, and the maintenance cycle is a state machine whose phase and completion date must survive restarts. - YAML packages need filesystem access, a configuration.yaml edit and a restart - none of which belong in a client install. - Add-ons authenticate with SUPERVISOR_TOKEN, so there is no long-lived token to generate, store or leak on someone else's machine. - Requires HA OS/Supervised. Container and Core installs cannot run add-ons at all, which is a market decision, not an oversight. The control law and the maintenance machine are pure functions with no Home Assistant imports, and both ship with runnable checks (22 and 22 assertions). Every assertion corresponds to a rule whose absence caused an observed failure on hardware - the saturation duration term, the clamp-before-slew ordering, the deadband, the sign convention. One behaviour deliberately differs from the implementation it replaces: when its inputs go missing this commands 0 W rather than replaying the last setpoint. The reference version kept replaying, which the hardware watchdog cannot catch - from the ESP32's side, Home Assistant is still talking to it. Includes the ESPHome firmware (now parameterised: node name, inverter rating, watchdog timeout) and the optional RS485 e-stop. FIELD-GUIDE.md carries the commissioning gates, all judged on the wire rather than on how Home Assistant looks, plus the written statement a site without an e-stop needs signed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016NckgXecasQb2eSsPYNSW6 |