goodwe-addon

47 Commits 209 Branches 19 Tags

3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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	2026-08-28 22:59:46 +02:00
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	2026-08-28 22:33:15 +02:00
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	2026-08-28 21:51:35 +02:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

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

2026-08-28 22:59:46 +02:00

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

2026-08-28 22:33:15 +02:00

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

2026-08-28 21:51:35 +02:00