Files
goodwe-addon/goodwe_controller/test_watchdog.py
T
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5 878a6ce452 MAINT-04: refuse a maintenance charge the ceiling cannot deliver
config.yaml shipped max_w 2000 against maintenance_charge_w 2500. The
cheap-window shaping files Claim.limit(hi = -maintenance_charge_w) against
the supervised SAFETY limit's lo = -max_w, so lo > hi - the arbiter's
clause 3, correctly resolved to 0 W and logged as a CONTRADICTION.
Maintenance silently never charged in a cheap window on a default install,
and the only evidence read like a bug in the arbiter rather than like the
two numbers the operator set.

validate_startup_config() now refuses maintenance_charge_w > max_w, the
same shape as CFG-01's sign_disagree_w >= max_w. Equality is reachable
(-max_w is a single valid point) and is not refused. Demonstrated by
starting the add-on on the pre-fix pair: exit 78 and the refusal banner.

maintenance_discharge_w was checked rather than assumed and is NOT the same
case: the drain phase OWNS the actuator (Claim.set at P_MAINTENANCE), so
the ceiling clamps it to +2000 W and the arbiter's explain() names the
clamp every cycle. Loud, and it still moves energy - warned, not refused.

The shipped maintenance rates drop to 2000 so the defaults pass the rule;
max_w was deliberately not raised, because it is the supervised safety
ceiling. test_validate.py now reads config.yaml itself, so a default the
validator refuses cannot ship again.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC
2026-08-30 02:28:09 +02:00

496 lines
21 KiB
Python

"""Runnable check for the sign-disagreement watchdog. `python3 test_watchdog.py`
Every case here is either a fault this must catch or a piece of NORMAL behaviour
it must not mistake for one. The second list is the longer one on purpose: an
alarm that fires on ordinary operation is worse than no alarm, because the next
person switches it off.
The headline validation is not here - it is `sim/replay_sign.py` in the infra
repo, which drives this module over the two captured bus days. This file is the
table-driven half: boundaries, timers, the latch, and the arming gate.
"""
import sys
from datetime import datetime, timedelta, timezone
from app.watchdog import (
SignWatchdog, SignWatchdogConfig, loop_is_following,
)
fails = []
T0 = datetime(2026, 8, 20, 15, 0, 0, tzinfo=timezone.utc)
def check(name, cond):
print(f" {'ok ' if cond else 'FAIL'} {name}")
if not cond:
fails.append(name)
def drive(samples, cfg=None, following=True):
"""Feed (offset_s, commanded_w, grid_w) tuples. Returns (wd, trip_offset)."""
wd = SignWatchdog(cfg)
trip_at = None
for item in samples:
offset, cmd, grid = item[0], item[1], item[2]
f = item[3] if len(item) > 3 else following
if wd.evaluate(cmd, grid, f, T0 + timedelta(seconds=offset)) and trip_at is None:
trip_at = offset
return wd, trip_at
def opposed(duration_s, step=5, cmd=-1000, grid=1500, following=True, start=0):
return [(start + t, cmd, grid, following)
for t in range(0, int(duration_s) + 1, step)]
print("the fault it exists to catch")
wd, at = drive(opposed(300))
check("charging into an importing house trips", wd.tripped)
check("and trips at 180 s, not before", at == 180)
check("the reason names both signals", "-1000" in wd.reason and "+1500" in wd.reason)
print(f" e.g. {wd.reason!r}")
wd, at = drive(opposed(300, cmd=2000, grid=-2000))
check("discharging into an exporting house trips too", wd.tripped and at == 180)
print()
print("the boundaries")
wd, _ = drive(opposed(600, cmd=-300, grid=1500))
check("300 W exactly does NOT qualify (strictly greater)", not wd.tripped)
wd, _ = drive(opposed(600, cmd=-301, grid=1500))
check("301 W does", wd.tripped)
wd, _ = drive(opposed(600, cmd=-1000, grid=300))
check("a 300 W meter does not qualify either", not wd.tripped)
wd, _ = drive(opposed(175))
check("175 s of disagreement does not trip", not wd.tripped)
wd, _ = drive(opposed(180))
check("180 s does (>= hold_s)", wd.tripped)
print()
print("continuity - the rule that produced zero false positives on real data")
broken = opposed(175) + [(180, -1000, -1500)] + opposed(175, start=185)
wd, _ = drive(broken)
check("179 s, one agreeing sample, then 175 s more: no trip", not wd.tripped)
check("and the window really was reset", wd.disagree_since is not None)
long_enough = broken + opposed(200, start=365)
wd, _ = drive(long_enough)
check("but a full 180 s after the reset does trip", wd.tripped)
print()
print("things that are NOT faults")
# The load-step transient. Measured on the healthy capture: longest 30 s.
wd, _ = drive(opposed(30) + [(35 + t, 800, 900) for t in range(0, 300, 5)])
check("a 30 s load-step crossover does not trip", not wd.tripped)
# SoC 10 %, Standby, declining a 1350 W discharge. The battery does nothing, so
# the meter stays where it was and the command agrees with it.
wd, _ = drive([(t, 1350, 1350) for t in range(0, 900, 5)])
check("a battery refusing a discharge command cannot trip it", not wd.tripped)
# A frozen meter drives command and reading into agreement, not disagreement.
wd, _ = drive([(t, 800, 800) for t in range(0, 900, 5)])
check("a frozen meter cannot trip it", not wd.tripped)
# Maintenance grid charge: 2500 W of charge against an importing house, for
# hours. Opposed, both huge - and entirely correct.
wd, _ = drive(opposed(7200, cmd=-2500, grid=3000, following=False))
check("two hours of maintenance grid charge does not trip", not wd.tripped)
check("and the timer never even started", wd.disagree_since is None)
wd, _ = drive([(t, -1000, None) for t in range(0, 900, 5)])
check("a missing meter reading does not trip", not wd.tripped)
wd, _ = drive(opposed(175) + [(180, -1000, None)] + opposed(600, start=185))
check("a missing reading mid-window RESETS it rather than accumulating",
wd.tripped and wd.disagree_since is not None)
wd, at = drive(opposed(175) + [(180, -1000, None)] + opposed(600, start=185))
check("...so the trip lands 180 s after the gap, not after 180 s total",
at == 365)
wd, _ = drive([(t, 0.0, 3000) for t in range(0, 900, 5)])
check("a 0 W command is not a wrong-direction command", not wd.tripped)
print()
print("the latch")
wd, _ = drive(opposed(200))
check("tripped after the fault", wd.tripped)
# The trip commands 0 W, which removes the command side of the comparison.
for t in range(200, 900, 5):
wd.evaluate(0.0, 3000, True, T0 + timedelta(seconds=t))
check("stays tripped once the command is zeroed", wd.tripped)
for t in range(900, 1500, 5):
wd.evaluate(1000, 1000, True, T0 + timedelta(seconds=t))
check("stays tripped even once everything looks healthy again", wd.tripped)
wd.reset()
check("reset() is the only way out", not wd.tripped and wd.disagree_since is None)
check("and the reason is cleared with it", wd.reason == "")
print()
print("the thresholds are configuration, not constants")
cfg = SignWatchdogConfig(min_w=800.0, hold_s=60.0)
wd, at = drive(opposed(300, cmd=-1000, grid=1500), cfg=cfg)
check("a 60 s hold trips at 60 s", wd.tripped and at == 60)
wd, _ = drive(opposed(600, cmd=-700, grid=1500), cfg=cfg)
check("an 800 W gate ignores a 700 W command", not wd.tripped)
print()
print("the configuration that would disarm it is refused")
from app.validate import validate_startup_config # noqa: E402
base = {"setpoint_entity": "number.sp", "meter_source": "off",
"meter_phases": 1, "meter_max_age_s": 30}
p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 2000, "sign_disagree_w": 300},
-5000, 5000)
check("300 W under a 2000 W ceiling is accepted", p == [])
p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 2000, "sign_disagree_w": 2000},
-5000, 5000)
check("a threshold AT max_w is refused", len(p) == 1 and "never fire" in p[0])
# ⚠️ maintenance_charge_w is named here only to keep this case about the SIGN
# rule. MAINT-04 added a second rule against the same ceiling, and a 500 W
# max_w is also below the 2000 W shipped maintenance charge - so without this
# the dict is refused twice, for two correct but different reasons, and the
# `len(p) == 1` below would be measuring the interaction rather than this rule.
p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 500, "sign_disagree_w": 3000,
"maintenance_charge_w": 500}, -5000, 5000)
check("a threshold above max_w is refused", len(p) == 1 and "never fire" in p[0])
p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 2000, "sign_disagree_w": 1999},
-5000, 5000)
check("one watt under the ceiling is reachable, so accepted", p == [])
print()
print("the arming gate, derived from the REAL arbiter")
# ⚠️ THIS IS THE DECISION THE WHOLE TICKET TURNS ON, and until now it was
# asserted in three comment blocks and verified by nothing: every other case in
# this file passes `following` in as a literal. What has to hold is that the
# expression in main.py - loop won AND the emitted value points the way the loop
# asked AND is no larger - is never True for a resolution the loop did not
# actually get. So run real claims through the real resolve() and derive it.
from app.arbiter import ( # noqa: E402
P_LOOP, P_MAINT_SHAPE, P_MAINTENANCE, P_PEAK, P_SAFETY, Claim, resolve,
)
def following_from(claims, asked):
"""THE SHIPPED gate, not a copy of it.
⚠️ This used to transcribe main.py's expression with a comment saying
"keep the two in step", 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 this suite - including the P_PEAK row below,
whose entire job is to catch that edit - completely green, while the watchdog
went blind for the duration of every peak event. Import it or the P_PEAK
assertion is decoration.
"""
r = resolve(claims)
return r, loop_is_following(r, asked)
MAXW = Claim.limit("supervised", P_SAFETY, -2000, 2000, "max_w")
DEV = Claim.limit("device", P_SAFETY, -5000, 5000, "rating")
# name, claims, what the loop asked, expected `following`
TABLE = [
("the loop alone, unopposed",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900)], 900, True),
("the loop bound by max_w - reduced, not redirected",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 4000), MAXW], 4000, True),
("charging, bound by max_w on the other side",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, -4000), MAXW], -4000, True),
("maintenance owns the setpoint outright",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900),
Claim.set("maintenance", P_MAINTENANCE, -2500, "charge"), MAXW], 900, False),
("maintenance charge-only clamps the loop to 0 W",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900),
Claim.limit("maintenance", P_MAINT_SHAPE, hi=0.0, reason="charge-only"),
MAXW], 900, False),
# ⚠️ THE CASE `winner == \"loop\"` ALONE WOULD HAVE GOT WRONG. 1500 W, not
# the default 2500 W: at max_w 2000 a -2500 hi against a -2000 lo is an
# arbiter contradiction, not a charge - see main.py.
("cheap-window charge REDIRECTS the loop while it still 'wins'",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 500),
Claim.limit("maintenance", P_MAINT_SHAPE, hi=-1500, reason="cheap-window"),
MAXW], 500, False),
("...and the contradiction at the shipped defaults is not following either",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 500),
Claim.limit("maintenance", P_MAINT_SHAPE, hi=-2500, reason="cheap-window"),
MAXW], 500, False),
("a lo limit RAISES the magnitude without flipping the sign",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 200),
Claim.limit("floor", P_SAFETY, lo=800), MAXW], 200, False),
("a safety stop wins outright",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900),
Claim.set("safety", P_SAFETY, 0.0, "stopped"), MAXW], 900, False),
("no claims at all - the arbiter's own failsafe",
[MAXW, DEV], None, False),
("the loop asked for zero",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 0.0), MAXW], 0.0, False),
# The forward hazard, asserted as it stands TODAY rather than as it should
# be. When peak shaving lands, these expectations are what have to change.
("peak shaving at P_PEAK disarms the gate (loop_is_following's forward hazard)",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900),
Claim.set("peak", P_PEAK, 1800, "shaving"), MAXW], 900, False),
# ⚠️ AND THE ROW ABOVE CANNOT DETECT A WIDENED GATE ON ITS OWN, which was
# found by trying it: with the shipped gate edited to
# `winner in ("loop", "peak")` that case STILL comes out False, because peak
# shaving asked for MORE than the loop and the magnitude term rejects it
# anyway. The winner term is masked. This row isolates it - a peak claim
# smaller than the loop's ask and pointing the same way, so `winner` is the
# only term that can decide - and it is what actually turns red if the gate
# is widened without anyone revisiting the hazard.
("...and with peak BELOW the loop's ask, only the winner term separates them",
[Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 1800),
Claim.set("peak", P_PEAK, 900, "shaving"), MAXW], 1800, False),
]
for name, claims, asked, expect in TABLE:
r, got = following_from(claims, asked)
check(f"{name} -> following={expect}", got is expect)
if got is not expect:
print(f" resolution was {r.explain()!r}")
# And the gate is never True when the loop did not win, whatever else is going on.
check("no configuration above arms the gate without the loop winning",
all(not following_from(c, a)[1]
for _, c, a, _ in TABLE if following_from(c, a)[0].winner != "loop"))
print()
print("end to end: the trip is COMMAND ZERO, not alarm-only")
# ⚠️ THE FAULT INJECTED HERE IS A NEGATIVE GAIN, and that is not a contrivance -
# it is the minimal faithful model of what this watchdog is for. The check
# compares the loop's OUTPUT DIRECTION against the INPUT STATE it was regulating,
# so what it detects is a loop whose two ends have become decoupled in sign: a
# gain, a claim or a strategy with its polarity inverted, or an integrator so far
# wound up that unwinding takes minutes. (Illusmart's was the last one: it
# reached -14 768 W against a +-5000 W rail while writing once every 20-60 s, and
# that arithmetic alone is 5-15 minutes of wrong-direction command.)
#
# `gain` is float(0.05,1.0) in the schema, so this is not a reachable
# configuration - it is a stand-in for a code regression, which is the case a
# unit test can actually hold the line on.
import asyncio # noqa: E402
from app.main import Controller # noqa: E402
class _Hass:
def __init__(self):
self.writes = []
async def limits(self, entity):
return (-5000.0, 5000.0, 1.0)
async def number(self, entity, invert=False):
# A house importing 2000 W, steadily, whatever the battery does.
return {"sensor.grid": 2000.0, "sensor.soc": 50.0,
"sensor.batt": 0.0}.get(entity)
async def set_number(self, entity, value):
self.writes.append(float(value))
return True
class _S:
data = {}
def set(self, *a):
pass
def get_time(self, *a):
return None
class _P:
enabled = False
def publish(self, *a, **k):
pass
def close(self):
pass
async def _e2e():
hass = _Hass()
opts = {"setpoint_entity": "number.sp", "meter_entity": "sensor.grid",
"soc_entity": "sensor.soc", "batt_entity": "sensor.batt",
"meter_source": "off", "max_w": 2000, "gain": -0.6,
"sign_disagree_w": 300, "sign_disagree_s": 1, "auto_start": True}
c = Controller(opts, hass, _S(), _P(), stop=asyncio.Event())
c.auto = True
c.dev_min, c.dev_max = -5000.0, 5000.0
seen_wrong_way = False
for _ in range(12):
await c.read_inputs()
await c.cycle()
if c.target < -300 and not c.sign_wd.tripped:
seen_wrong_way = True
await asyncio.sleep(0.25)
return c, hass, seen_wrong_way
ctrl, hass, wrong_way = asyncio.run(_e2e())
check("the broken loop really did command charge into an import first", wrong_way)
check("the watchdog tripped", ctrl.sign_wd.tripped)
check("the commanded value is 0 W", ctrl.target == 0.0)
check("0 W actually reached the device", 0.0 in hass.writes)
check("and it got there through the failsafe claim, not by accident",
"failsafe" in ctrl.reason)
print(f" status line: {ctrl.reason!r}")
check("the status page says so in words",
any("SIGN-DISAGREEMENT FAILSAFE" in c["text"] for c in ctrl.checks()))
check("the banner leads with it",
"FAILSAFE" in ctrl.status_payload()["banner"])
check("it stays at 0 W on later cycles too",
hass.writes[-1] == 0.0 and hass.writes.count(0.0) >= 1)
# ⚠️ THIS USED TO BE `check("MQTT reports the failsafe state", ctrl.sign_wd.tripped)`
# which restates the assertion three lines above and never touches the payload.
# The `status: "failsafe"` value was shipped untested. Capture what publish()
# actually hands the broker.
published = {}
ctrl.mqtt = type("P", (), {"enabled": True,
"publish": lambda _s, v: published.update(v),
"close": lambda _s: None})()
ctrl.publish()
check("MQTT's controller-status sensor reports 'failsafe'",
published.get("status") == "failsafe")
ctrl.sign_wd.reset()
ctrl.publish()
check("...and goes back to 'running' once cleared",
published.get("status") == "running")
print()
print("the latch survives a restart - it is the only thing between a tripped")
print("controller and the first thing an operator will try")
# ⚠️ THE BLOCKER THIS FILE MISSED FIRST TIME ROUND. `auto` is persisted and
# `tripped` was not, so reconstructing a Controller against the same Store -
# which is exactly what a container restart does - came back armed, into the
# fault, with no operator involved: tripped=False, banner NOT READY, and it
# resumed commanding -1000 then -2000 W before re-tripping 180 s later.
class _MemStore:
"""A Store that keeps its dict across "restarts", like the real file does."""
def __init__(self):
self.data = {"phase": "idle", "sign_tripped": False, "sign_reason": ""}
def set(self, k, v):
self.data[k] = v
def get_time(self, *a):
return None
async def _restart():
shared = _MemStore()
hass1 = _Hass()
opts = {"setpoint_entity": "number.sp", "meter_entity": "sensor.grid",
"soc_entity": "sensor.soc", "batt_entity": "sensor.batt",
"meter_source": "off", "max_w": 2000, "gain": -0.6,
"sign_disagree_w": 300, "sign_disagree_s": 1, "auto_start": True}
a = Controller(opts, hass1, shared, _P(), stop=asyncio.Event())
a.auto = True
a.dev_min, a.dev_max = -5000.0, 5000.0
for _ in range(12):
await a.read_inputs()
await a.cycle()
await asyncio.sleep(0.25)
# The restart. Same options, same store, brand new Controller and Hass.
hass2 = _Hass()
b = Controller(opts, hass2, shared, _P(), stop=asyncio.Event())
b.auto = True
b.dev_min, b.dev_max = -5000.0, 5000.0
for _ in range(6):
await b.read_inputs()
await b.cycle()
await asyncio.sleep(0.05)
return a, b, shared, hass2
pre, post, store, hass2 = asyncio.run(_restart())
check("it tripped before the restart", pre.sign_wd.tripped)
check("the trip reached the store", store.data["sign_tripped"] is True)
check("...with the reason beside it, so the operator is told why",
"SIGN_DISAGREEMENT" in store.data["sign_reason"])
check("the new Controller comes back TRIPPED", post.sign_wd.tripped)
check("...and says why, restored rather than re-detected",
"SIGN_DISAGREEMENT" in post.sign_wd.reason)
check("...commands 0 W from its very first cycle", post.target == 0.0)
check("...and never commanded anything else after the restart",
hass2.writes != [] and set(hass2.writes) == {0.0})
check("the banner still leads with the failsafe",
"FAILSAFE" in post.status_payload()["banner"])
# ⚠️ TWO PRESSES, and the first one must NOT clear it. `auto` is True while
# tripped, so the first press stops control; only the transition back to True
# clears. That is the documented behaviour and it is worth an assertion, because
# a one-press clear would be reachable by an operator who never read the banner.
asyncio.run(post.handle_action("auto_toggle")) # -> stopped
check("pressing stop does not clear the failsafe",
post.sign_wd.tripped and store.data["sign_tripped"] is True)
asyncio.run(post.handle_action("auto_toggle")) # -> started
check("pressing start DOES clear it, and clears the store with it",
not post.sign_wd.tripped and store.data["sign_tripped"] is False
and store.data["sign_reason"] == "")
# One more restart from the cleared store, to prove the clear persisted too.
fresh = Controller({"setpoint_entity": "number.sp", "meter_source": "off"},
_Hass(), store, _P(), stop=asyncio.Event())
check("...so the next restart comes back armed and untripped, as it should",
not fresh.sign_wd.tripped)
# ⚠️ THE WRITE ORDERING IS AN INVARIANT, SO IT GETS AN ASSERTION. main.py writes
# `sign_reason` and THEN `sign_tripped`, each one its own `save()`, so that a
# process that dies between the two leaves a reason nothing reads - harmless -
# rather than a latch with no explanation for the operator who has to decide
# whether to clear it. Documented reasoning is not enforcement: swapping those two
# lines used to pass every check in this file.
#
# The death is modelled as the second write raising. In the field it is a power
# cut or a container kill (Store.save() swallows OSError rather than raising), so
# what is asserted here is the PROPERTY - what survives on disk - not the
# mechanism.
class _CrashOnFlag(_MemStore):
def set(self, k, v):
if k == "sign_tripped" and v:
raise RuntimeError("power cut, mid-trip")
super().set(k, v)
async def _crash_mid_write():
store = _CrashOnFlag()
hass = _Hass()
opts = {"setpoint_entity": "number.sp", "meter_entity": "sensor.grid",
"soc_entity": "sensor.soc", "batt_entity": "sensor.batt",
"meter_source": "off", "max_w": 2000, "gain": -0.6,
"sign_disagree_w": 300, "sign_disagree_s": 1, "auto_start": True}
c = Controller(opts, hass, store, _P(), stop=asyncio.Event())
c.auto = True
c.dev_min, c.dev_max = -5000.0, 5000.0
died = False
for _ in range(12):
try:
await c.read_inputs()
await c.cycle()
except RuntimeError:
died = True
break
await asyncio.sleep(0.25)
return store, died
crashed_store, died = asyncio.run(_crash_mid_write())
check("the second write is the one that sets the flag", died)
check("a crash between the two writes leaves the REASON on disk",
"SIGN_DISAGREEMENT" in crashed_store.data.get("sign_reason", ""))
check("...and never a latch with nothing to explain it",
not crashed_store.data.get("sign_tripped"))
print()
if fails:
print(f"{len(fails)} FAILED: {', '.join(fails)}")
sys.exit(1)
print("all checks passed")