TARIFF-12: a returned degradation is not a refresh #79
Merged
admin
merged 2 commits from 2026-09-12 21:39:24 +02:00
TARIFF-12 into release/1.0
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Claude
|
f5ea39784d |
Merge release/1.0 (TARIFF-10) into TARIFF-12
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 7m16s
CHANGELOG.md was the only conflict: both entries belong under the same
`## Unreleased` heading, TARIFF-10's first because it merged first. No
version number picked.
app/main.py auto-merged, and was re-read because of it. TARIFF-10 changed
WHICH installs run `run_tariff_refresh()` (`arbitrage.enabled(opts)` ->
`tariff_refresh_wanted(opts)`); this card changed what that task does on
a failed fetch. Nothing in the keep/replace reasoning changed, and the
two newly reachable configurations are now DRIVEN in test_arbitrage.py
8b rather than reasoned about:
* a provider configured with trading DISARMED is the case the guard
was designed for, and needs no second fixture because nothing on
this path reads `arbitrage_enabled` at all - asserted over the AST's
symbols and non-docstring constants, after two drafts of that check
went red on a CORRECT tree for matching the word "arbitrage" in a
docstring and in a log line;
* `price_provider: off` + a `static_profile` resolves to the
CONFIGURED product (`origin: "static"`), so `standing.from_feed` is
false on every refresh and the guard never latches - driven twice in
a row, because a guard that latched there would freeze a static
site's plan at its first window for the life of the install.
Also: the kept-plan log line said "arbitrage stops with it", which after
TARIFF-10 is false on a site that fetches without trading; it now says
"arbitrage, where it is armed, stops with it". The keep decision is
strictly downstream of `resolve_tariff()`, so the §8.3 carry into
price_history - TARIFF-10's whole point - is unaffected either way.
All 29 suites green on the merged tree, including TARIFF-10's new
test_price.py section 13. All eleven mutations RE-DRIVEN on the merged
tree rather than carried over: eleven red, no survivors, every revert
fingerprinted. M11 is new - making the guard conditional on
`arbitrage.enabled(self.o)` (+86 B) is red on five named checks.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
Claude
|
c81289527f |
TARIFF-12: a returned degradation is not a refresh
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 7m12s
`run_tariff_refresh()` promised in its own docstring that "a failure does not clear the plan", and enforced it with `except Exception` - a branch a supplier outage never reaches. `load_prices()` states the reason in its own words: it "RETURNS, NEVER RAISES, for every failure a site can actually have", because a degradation arriving as a traceback into the planning tick would stop the controller regulating over an expired certificate. So a dead feed RETURNS a §11.4 plan, the `try` succeeds, and the assignment below it overwrote the good plan unconditionally. With `static_profile` unset - the shipped default, and the normal state of a dynamic-tariff site - `_degrade()` returns `TariffPlan(no_data, None, "none")`: a complete 48-hour plan replaced by nothing, at the FIRST failed fetch, ~27 minutes after the last good one. `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S` (5400 s) never governed anything and there was no serve-stale window at all. Fourth card in one family: FCST-04's M4 (`not ok` only), FCST-05's HIGH (`(JSONDecodeError, OSError)` only), FCST-06 (`not self.ok` only), and now `except Exception` only, for a path that never raises. The question is now asked once, after the attempt, from the evidence that exists - FCST-06's answer, one module over. The evidence is `TariffPlan.from_feed` (did this resolution observe the configured feed) and the shipped `fresh_tariff_plan()`, reused rather than transcribed. A degradation replaces a standing observation only once that observation has aged out, so `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S` is now the serve-stale window it reads like. A §11.4 static fallback does not replace a fresh provider plan either, although it carries real prices: every point `_degrade()` builds is `provisional=True`, so `firm_points()` is empty, `arbitrage()` refuses and `cheap_now()` is False - everything a consumer may act on is already off - while a day-ahead price for a given hour does not change once published. The rule is deliberately not symmetrical: a standing plan that is itself a degradation IS replaced, or an outage would freeze the operator's static profile at the window it was first generated for. `tariff_at` does not move on a kept plan. It is the moment of the fetch that produced the plan standing, `fresh_tariff_plan()` judges the age from it, and an unmoved timestamp is the only thing that tells a kept plan from a freshly fetched one. test_arbitrage.py section 8b drives the whole chain with nothing stubbed but the socket: the transport raises the way aiohttp does, load_prices() returns no_data, _degrade() builds the §11.4 plan, and the shipped run_tariff_refresh() decides. A check that patched resolve_tariff to RAISE would have passed against the defect. Ten mutations, ten reds, no survivors; 29/29 suites green. Out of scope and unchanged: the persisted price store still does not back the plan during an outage (FCST-03), and the status banner and the Arbitrage row's lag are separately carded. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU |