3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5	b6c6da31d8	TEL-10: two sentences that named assertions this file does not make ... Both are review findings on the merged-in-spirit branch, and neither is in executable code. R6 - test_mqtt.py part 1's headline said "every one of release/1.0's NINE messages is still byte-identical and still first". The assertion under it is `announce(...)[:len(BASELINE) - 1] == BASELINE[:-1]`, which covers EIGHT: the ninth, `goodwe_ctl/availability`, is byte-identical but deliberately moves to last, so a prefix comparison cannot include it. Nothing was unguarded - the `== SITE_NOW` on the next check pins it in its new position - but the sentence was not the check. Part 3 carried the same mis-statement two lines from a check that IS about all nine, and is corrected the same way. R5 - M7's red count was decoration. Re-driven in the CI image on a `cp -a` of the tree, purged, `:ro`, one file at a time, it is 10 reds in test_mqtt.py and not 8, on this tree and on SAFETY-48's alike. The direction was right; the number was inherited rather than re-measured, which is MUTATION.md's reporting rule 3. A note beside the table now says that a red count is a property of the SUITE as much as of the mutation and therefore has to name a tree. Verified: the full suite in the CI image, purged tree, `:ro` mount, one file at a time, exactly the command in .gitea/workflows/checks.yml - 30/30, exit 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU	2026-09-19 02:36:23 +02:00
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5	b548525d10	TEL-10: the loop's integrator stops being invisible ... `self.i_w` has been a separate quantity from the command since SAFETY-04 and has left the process nowhere at all - no entity, no MQTT attribute, no log line. The investigation behind SAFETY-48 could only RECONSTRUCT it from the grid trace plus a replay; the reconstruction reproduced about a third of the engagements it was checked against and was discarded, so the card it was gathered for had to be argued from a measurement nobody could stand behind. It could not have been made to work either: `i_w` depends on every cycle before it, including the ones where the arbiter overrode the loop and `main.py` re-seeded `self.i_w = self.target`, and that re-seed is invisible in the grid trace. THREE SITE ROWS, APPENDED AFTER release/1.0's EIGHT. `loop_i` is `Decision.i_w` - the accumulator after the cycle, before the output clamp, the slew limit and quantisation. `loop_lead` is `decision.i_w - prev_w` against the command `compute()` was HANDED, which is not a subtraction of the other two published rows: `Setpoint` is the arbiter's output and is this cycle's, so on any cycle the arbiter overrode the loop the two differ - and that is exactly the cycle on which the integrator was re-seeded. `loop_reason` is `compute()`'s own word; the arbiter's `explain()` prints the winning claim's NAME and has never carried the claim's reason, so `slew-limited` appears in neither the `Why` row nor `Controller status`. Measured on the same cycle: arbiter `'loop -> -5000 W'`, loop `'i-clamped'`. NOTHING IN THE CONTROL PATH MOVED. `app/control.py` is not in this diff. `compute()`, its returned `Decision` and every constant it reads are identical to release/1.0, and all nine of release/1.0's retained discovery messages are byte-identical and still FIRST in the announcement. Evidence: 30/30 suites green in the CI image. Nine mutations, ONE survivor, reported as one: `decision.i_w - self.target` for the lead is +2 B and green because `cycle()` has not reassigned `self.target` at that line - the name is kept for the coupling, not for a behaviour it buys, and M2b (+8 B) is the mutation that does change the value and is red. AND TWO OF THIS CARD'S OWN CHECKS COULD NOT REACH THE FAILURE THEY NAMED. "the published integrator reaches its bound" was GREEN under the card's named mutation (publish `prev_w`, -3 B), because the command reaches the bound too - twelve cycles later. It asserts the LEAD TIME now and is red on 5. "a stopped controller publishes not-running" was GREEN under deleting that branch's assignments (-45 B, -67 B), because the fixture STARTED stopped and `__init__` writes the same values; it stops the controller part-way through a run that has already wound the integrator to -5000 W. Both are MUTATION.md habit 4, found by the battery rather than by review. No CHANGELOG section: `test_version_gate.py` 11b refuses a newest `## ` heading that is not config.yaml's `version:`, and opening one would mean taking a packaging decision this card does not get to take. The operator account is in DOCS.md and the release note belongs to the next PKG ticket. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU	2026-09-18 23:36:23 +02:00
adminandClaude Opus 5	26c5ee8adc	TEL-07: a second MQTT device for inverter B, and A keeps the one it has ... MQTT discovery announced ONE device and hung every entity off one unique_id prefix, so at two inverters B's per-unit telemetry had nowhere to go. It has somewhere now, and not one entity that already exists moved. ⚠️ THE ASYMMETRY IS DELIBERATE. The first roster entry's per-unit rows are announced on THE DEVICE IT ALREADY HAS; every later entry gets its own device, via_device the controller. "One device per inverter" is tidier and is the change that renames every entity on the live install - and because HA keeps the id it composed at FIRST discovery, a rename produces a NEW entity beside a DEAD one: the history stays behind and every dashboard, template and automation naming it goes on pointing at a sensor that quietly stopped updating, including the three live watchdog automations. The composed ids come out symmetric anyway (sensor.goodwe_inverter_a_battery_power / ..._inverter_b_...), so the tidy design's only real benefit is bought here without its cost. * four per-unit rows - setpoint, battery power, SoC, SAFETY-02 sign latch - announced only from a roster of two. At N=1 nothing is announced and nothing is published: no second device, no renamed entity, no added topic. * grid and p1_sample_age_s stay SITE-scoped and are announced ONCE, at every roster length 1-6. One P1, one grid connection, and p1_sample_age_s is a watchdog input - a second copy is a second answer to "is the meter fresh?". * inverter.roster_names() is the one answer to what the units are called, read by build_roster() and by the publisher, which must know the roster before a Controller exists because announcing happens on the CONNACK. * DECISIONS/TEL-07-second-mqtt-device.md records the two designs side by side. VERIFIED BY DIFFING THE ANNOUNCED PAYLOADS, not by reading the code. The release/1.0 baseline in test_mqtt.py was generated by running that commit's module, not transcribed. Roster of one: 9 topics, 0 missing, 0 changed, 0 added. Roster of two: 0 missing, 0 changed, 8 added. MEASURED, NOT ASSERTED. Sixteen mutations through tools/mutation_run.sh; twelve are in the file as a running table, each named with the property it breaks. Three of those properties exist because the table found their ABSENCE - dropping the unit from the state topic, moving `grid` into the per-unit set, and `units=()` in main()'s publisher call were all GREEN on the first run, as was a roster fallback naming two nameless entries `inverter-a`. Part 9 enumerates what the file still cannot see, with sizes. ⚠️ INVERTER B DOES NOT PHYSICALLY EXIST (~2026-09-12). Every roster of two here is SIMULATED, from the datasheet and serial in NOTES.md §1.1b. Nothing about B has been measured and no entity described here has been seen on a broker. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU	2026-09-05 14:14:53 +02:00