Files
goodwe-addon/goodwe_controller/tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py
T
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5 a9993aeda2
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m51s
SPIKE-04a: inverter B is 4600 W FROM ITS DATASHEET, and the copies are pinned
The desk half of SPIKE-04. No control behaviour changes; this is documentation
and the check that stops it drifting again.

Three places stated inverter B's rating - config.yaml's commented roster
example, DOCS.md's, and tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py's "a blob an operator
would POST" - and all three said 3000 W, a number nobody had measured or read
off anything. The owner supplied B's model and serial on 2026-09-04: a GoodWe
GW5048D-ES, serial `55048ESU22AW0992`, max charging and discharging power
4600 W. Serial characters 6-8 are `ESU`, platform 105 / AA55, so SPIKE-01 does
not gate this site. All three copies now read 4600.

⚠️ 4600 W IS FROM A DATASHEET AND IS NOT A MEASUREMENT, and the one ambiguity
is recorded rather than guessed. The datasheet prints it under BATTERY INPUT
DATA, so it is probably DC, while max_w is graded against 0x0518 - the
inverter's own AC power. If it is DC the AC ceiling is nearer 4324 W. Neither
reading is written in as fact; SAFETY-20's min(max_w, dev_max) already bounds
it correctly under either, once dev_max is read off the unit, so `max_w: 4600`
is what an operator should configure today. goodwe/NOTES.md §1.1b carries the
full record with the date and the method on every figure.

A NEW CHECK, BECAUSE A DOCUMENTATION FIX WITHOUT ONE DRIFTS AGAIN.
test_validate.py now pins all three documented rosters: findable, in agreement,
and equal to 4600 - with an explicit len(...) == 3 guard so that a regex which
stopped matching cannot leave "they all agree" green on the two sites still
read. It also grades the PROVENANCE beside the number (the datasheet, the
0x0518 it is graded against, and the 4324 W the DC reading would make it)
WITHIN 2500 characters of the roster rather than file-wide.

⚠️ The first version of that provenance check searched whole files and was
ALREADY VACUOUS on two of them: 0x0518 appeared once in config.yaml and once in
DOCS.md before this card, for unrelated reasons, so `"0x0518" in src` was green
no matter what happened next to B's rating. That is a check whose data cannot
reach the failure it names, in the file that exists to complain about them. It
is fixed, and the window is what fixes it - deleting the caveat beside the
number now goes red even where the same token survives elsewhere in the file.
The windowed version immediately found that the DOCS.md caveat did not name
0x0518 at all; DOCS.md now says it.

Four mutations, bytecode purged and counted at 0 before and after each, all
RED (two of them 0-byte deltas that change a printed answer):
  M1  probe's operator blob 4600 -> 3000        0 B   RED (value + agreement)
  M2  DOCS.md's DC/AC caveat deleted         -157 B   RED (provenance)
  M3  config.yaml alone 4600 -> 4324            0 B   RED (agreement)
  M4  probe entity renamed, regex finds nothing       RED (the vacuity guard)
Restored, green again. The probe itself was re-run against Supervisor
2026.08.0's own AppOptions validator with the 4600: all cases passed, exit 0.

⚠️ THE TEST FIXTURES KEEP 3000 W ON PURPOSE AND NOW SAY WHY AT THE LINE.
test_inverter.py, test_maintenance.py, test_peakguard.py and test_watchdog.py
build a second inverter at 3000 W against A's 5000 W. The only property those
checks consume is that B's number is unmistakably not A's, and the real pair is
a 400 W gap - narrower than slew_w, inside the range where an off-by-one-unit
bug and ordinary control arithmetic produce indistinguishable numbers.
Collapsing them onto the real values would buy realism those checks do not use
and cost them their separating power, which is exactly what test_peakguard.py's
own §10g PRECONDITION exists to prevent. Their comments no longer call 3000 W a
hypothesis about B's rating; they call it illustrative, and not a placeholder
either - the placeholder era ended on 2026-09-04.

Also recorded in the changelog for the cards that own them: 94 % battery-to-AC
=> ~88 % round trip => ~360 W burned continuously to circulate 3 kW, which is
the number SAFETY-31 argues its threshold from without having one; < 13 W night
self-consumption per unit, which nothing accounts for; and the A/B asymmetry in
opposite directions (~33 % more energy, ~8 % less power), which means MAINT-05's
12 h drain timeout was derived on A and should be re-checked against B.

⚠️ Honest survivors:
- goodwe/NOTES.md §1.1b, where all of this is actually recorded, is graded by
  nothing here. Rewriting its 16 occurrences of 4600 to 3000 and turning every
  FROM DATASHEET label into MEASURED ON THE UNIT leaves all 19 files GREEN.
  This CI cannot fetch admin/goodwe - private, and GITHUB_TOKEN is minted for
  this repository only, as .gitea/workflows/checks.yml already states - so the
  cross-repo check is not buildable here.
- No check can see whether 4600 is the RIGHT number. Everything above pins a
  datasheet reading against itself. Only the bench half of SPIKE-04 can say
  whether the unit agrees, and the DC-vs-AC ambiguity is the live example.
- The constant is still named B_RATING_HYPOTHESIS in four test files, which
  reads as a hypothesis about B's rating when it is now an illustrative
  fixture. It is left alone deliberately: renaming ~20 sites across
  test_peakguard.py and test_inverter.py would collide hard with the open
  SAFETY-32 pull request, which rewrites 1255 lines of the first. The comment
  directly above each definition says what the value is and is not.

Suite: 19/19 green in goodwe-addon-ci, mounted :ro, bytecode purged and
verified 0 before and after.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
2026-09-04 22:19:31 +02:00

236 lines
13 KiB
Python

"""CFG-04: does Supervisor accept a list-of-objects option? MEASURED, not assumed.
⚠️ WHY THIS SCRIPT EXISTS AND WHY IT IS COMMITTED. config.yaml had no
list-of-objects option anywhere before CFG-04, and `static_profile` carries a
structured value as a JSON STRING in a `str?` precisely because nobody knew
whether the Supervisor's options validator supported a nested one. That is a
question about a specific version of a specific piece of somebody else's
software, and the honest way to answer it is to run that software.
WHAT IT RUNS. Supervisor's OWN `AppOptions` validator and its OWN
`SCHEMA_APP_CONFIG`, out of the release image, against THIS repository's
config.yaml. Nothing here is a re-implementation of the validation rules; if
Supervisor changes them, this script changes its answer.
HOW TO RUN IT (the version is the one `ha info` reports on the target install -
2026.08.0 is what 192.168.2.158 ran when CFG-04 landed):
docker run --rm \
-v "$PWD:/w:ro" -v "$PWD/tools:/probe:ro" -v /tmp/out:/out \
--entrypoint python3 \
ghcr.io/home-assistant/amd64-hassio-supervisor:2026.08.0 \
/probe/supervisor_shape_probe.py
⚠️ IT TOUCHES NOTHING. It reads config.yaml and runs a validator in a throwaway
container. It does not talk to the live Supervisor, does not POST options and
does not install anything - the schema conflict in docs/deploy-rollback.md §4 is
exactly what you do NOT want to discover on a running site.
WHAT IT ANSWERED, 2026-09-04, on 2026.08.0 - the full output is in
DECISIONS/CFG-04-inverter-roster.md:
A. The manifest, list-of-objects schema and all, is ACCEPTED.
B. The shipped `options:` block validates as it stands, and the SAME block
with ONLY `inverters` removed is refused BY NAME - `Missing option
'inverters' in root`. That is the one measurement the `inverters: []`
default rests on, and it is an ISOLATED counterfactual: exactly one key
varies between the two runs, so the refusal cannot be about anything else.
B2. A reconstructed pre-0.6.0 options blob, merged with those defaults,
validates. Its RAW form is refused - but for whichever required key the
reconstruction happens to lack FIRST, which is an artefact of the
reconstruction and NOT evidence about `inverters`. B is that evidence.
C. A two-inverter blob validates, per-entry types enforced.
D. An entry missing `name`, `setpoint_entity` or `max_w` is refused BY NAME,
and a JSON string where the list belongs is refused outright.
"""
import sys, json, copy
sys.path.insert(0, "/usr/src/supervisor")
import voluptuous as vol
from voluptuous.humanize import humanize_error
from deepmerge import Merger
from supervisor.apps.validate import SCHEMA_APP_CONFIG
from supervisor.apps.options import AppOptions
from pathlib import Path
from supervisor.utils.yaml import read_yaml_file
MERGER = Merger(type_strategies=[(dict, ["merge"])],
fallback_strategies=["override"], type_conflict_strategies=["override"])
raw = read_yaml_file(Path("/w/config.yaml"))
print("== A. the whole config.yaml through SCHEMA_APP_CONFIG ==")
try:
cfg = SCHEMA_APP_CONFIG(raw)
print(" PASS Supervisor accepts the add-on manifest, version", cfg["version"])
except vol.Invalid as e:
print(" FAIL ", humanize_error(raw, e)); sys.exit(1)
schema, defaults = cfg["schema"], cfg["options"]
print(" schema declares", len(schema), "keys; inverters ->", json.dumps(schema["inverters"]))
# .get, not [], deliberately: if someone deletes the `inverters: []` default
# this line must not crash the probe before section B gets to REFUSE it.
print(" options ship inverters ->", json.dumps(defaults.get("inverters")))
def validate(options):
v = vol.Schema(vol.All(dict, AppOptions(None, schema, cfg["name"], "local_goodwe_controller")))
try:
return True, v(copy.deepcopy(options))
except vol.Invalid as e:
return False, str(e)
FAILED = []
def show(t, ok, d=""):
print(f" {'PASS' if ok else 'FAIL'} {t}")
if d: print(" " + str(d)[:300])
if not ok: FAILED.append(t)
# The live install's persisted options, reconstructed from HANDOVER.md §1 and
# docs/deploy-rollback.md §0/§B.5. No `inverters` key: it did not exist.
LIVE = {
"meter_entity": "sensor.p1_meter_active_power", "meter_invert": False,
"soc_entity": "sensor.goodwe_battery_soc", "batt_entity": "sensor.goodwe_battery_power",
"batt_invert": False,
"setpoint_entity": "number.kelder_goodwe_master_stage1_goodwe_setpoint_w",
"meter_source": "homewizard_local", "meter_phases": 1, "meter_max_age_s": 30,
"meter_poll_s": 5, "p1_host": "192.168.2.250",
"max_w": 5000, "gain": 0.6, "slew_w": 1000, "deadband_w": 15, "target_grid_w": -10,
"step_w": 10, "saturation_w": 500, "saturation_cycles": 3, "integrator_max_w": 0,
"heartbeat_s": 10, "stale_input_s": 15, "cycle_floor_s": 15, "auto_start": False,
"maintenance_enabled": False, "estop_fitted": True, "log_level": "info",
}
print("\n== B. THE LOAD-BEARING ONE: an options blob with no `inverters` key ==")
# ⚠️ THIS IS AN ISOLATED COUNTERFACTUAL AND IT HAS TO STAY ISOLATED. The claim
# the `inverters: []` default rests on is about ONE key, so exactly ONE key
# varies between these two runs: the full shipped `options:` block, and the same
# block with `inverters` removed and nothing else touched. Feeding the validator
# some other, INCOMPLETE blob would also produce a refusal - but about whichever
# required key that blob lacks first, which is a different measurement wearing
# this one's label. §B2 below is that other blob, and it is labelled as such.
ok, out = validate(dict(defaults))
show("the shipped `options:` block validates AS IT STANDS - so anything refused "
"on the next line is refused for the one key that was removed", ok,
"" if ok else out)
_no_inv = {k: v for k, v in defaults.items() if k != "inverters"}
ok_ni, out_ni = validate(_no_inv)
# ⚠️ THE ASSERTION IS ON THE KEY NAME, NOT ON `not ok`, AND THAT IS THE POINT.
# A refusal is only evidence for THIS key if it NAMES this key. Asserted as a
# bare `not ok`, this line would go on printing PASS after someone deleted
# `inverters: []` from config.yaml - blind to the exact regression it is the
# committed evidence for. Asserted on the string, it goes red: with the default
# gone the line above fails too, because then nothing distinguishes the two runs.
_names_it = (not ok_ni) and "Missing option 'inverters' in root" in str(out_ni)
show("...and the SAME block with ONLY `inverters` removed is REFUSED, BY NAME - "
"which is every options blob written before 0.6.0, since the key did not "
"exist when they were written", _names_it, out_ni)
print("\n== B2. AC3: a reconstructed pre-0.6.0 blob upgrades into this version ==")
# ⚠️ WHAT THIS SECTION IS AND IS NOT. LIVE is an INCOMPLETE reconstruction - it
# carries the keys HANDOVER.md and deploy-rollback.md record and no others, so
# it is missing many required keys that have nothing to do with this card. Its
# raw refusal is therefore about whichever of THOSE the validator reaches first
# (it has printed `meter_freeze_s` and `p1_phase_export_entities` on different
# runs), NOT about `inverters`. It is kept because the MERGED half is a real
# demonstration that `deepmerge(options:, stored)` is what App.options is; the
# raw half is printed only so the merge has something to be contrasted with.
# The `inverters` measurement is §B, where one key and only one key varies.
ok, out = validate(LIVE)
show("the reconstructed raw blob is REFUSED - for an unrelated missing key, "
"because the reconstruction is incomplete; see the refusal printed below "
"and §B for the `inverters` measurement", not ok, out)
merged = MERGER.merge(copy.deepcopy(defaults), copy.deepcopy(LIVE))
ok, out = validate(merged)
show("the same blob MERGED with these defaults - what App.options actually is", ok,
f"inverters={out.get('inverters')!r} setpoint_entity={out.get('setpoint_entity')!r} "
f"max_w={out.get('max_w')!r}" if ok else out)
print("\n== C. AC2: a two-inverter blob an operator would POST ==")
# ⚠️ B's 4600 W IS FROM ITS DATASHEET, NOT A PLACEHOLDER AND NOT A MEASUREMENT.
# SPIKE-04a (2026-09-04) identified inverter B from the owner's model number and
# serial - a GoodWe GW5048D-ES, serial `55048ESU22AW0992` - and the datasheet's
# Max. Charging / Discharging Power is 4600 W. The 3000 W that stood here was a
# hypothesis from before the unit was known and was simply wrong; the 5000 VA AC
# nameplate is wrong for this purpose too, because nothing will be connected to
# B's MPPTs so the battery path is the ceiling. See goodwe/NOTES.md §1.1b.
#
# ⚠️ AND IT IS STILL NOT MEASURED. The datasheet prints 4600 W under BATTERY
# INPUT DATA, so it is probably DC, while `max_w` is graded against 0x0518 - the
# inverter's own AC power. If it is DC the AC ceiling is nearer 4600 x 0.94 =
# 4324 W. NOTES.md §1.1b records both readings without picking one, and
# SAFETY-20's `min(max_w, dev_max)` is what bounds it correctly once dev_max is
# read off the unit. So this blob is what an operator would POST TODAY, not a
# claim about what inverter B will turn out to do.
#
# ⚠️ THE TWO RATINGS ARE STILL DIFFERENT (5000 / 4600) AND MUST STAY DIFFERENT.
# This file's own §B is the record of what an instrument that cannot distinguish
# its two cases is worth. Note that 5000/4600 is a much NARROWER separation than
# the 5000/3000 it replaces - fine here, where nothing computes on the numbers,
# and NOT fine in the test fixtures, which is why those keep a wide illustrative
# pair instead of the real one.
TWO = dict(LIVE, setpoint_entity="", inverters=[
{"name": "inverter-a", "setpoint_entity": "number.goodwe_a_setpoint_w",
"soc_entity": "sensor.goodwe_a_soc", "batt_entity": "sensor.goodwe_a_battery_power",
"max_w": 5000},
{"name": "inverter-b", "setpoint_entity": "number.goodwe_b_setpoint_w",
"soc_entity": "sensor.goodwe_b_soc", "batt_entity": "sensor.goodwe_b_battery_power",
"max_w": 4600}])
ok, out = validate(MERGER.merge(copy.deepcopy(defaults), copy.deepcopy(TWO)))
show("two inverters", ok, json.dumps(out.get("inverters")) if ok else out)
# The validated blob, for anyone who wants to POST it. Optional: the probe's
# whole job is the verdicts above, and a missing /out must not fail it.
try:
json.dump(out if ok else {}, open("/out/two_inverter_options.json", "w"), indent=1)
except OSError:
pass
print("\n== D. what the schema itself refuses, per entry ==")
# The rating here is filler - each entry is refused for a MISSING key, so no
# verdict below depends on the number. It carries B's datasheet 4600 W anyway,
# so that nothing in this file reads as 3000 W being inverter B's rating.
for title, entry in (
("no name", {"setpoint_entity": "number.b", "max_w": 4600}),
("no setpoint_entity", {"name": "inverter-b", "max_w": 4600}),
("no max_w", {"name": "inverter-b", "setpoint_entity": "number.b"}),
("max_w over the range", {"name": "inverter-b", "setpoint_entity": "number.b", "max_w": 9999})):
ok, out = validate(dict(TWO, inverters=[entry]))
show(f"an entry with {title} is refused", not ok, out)
ok, out = validate(dict(TWO, inverters="[]"))
show("a JSON STRING where the list belongs is refused", not ok, out)
print("\n== E. the ROLLBACK direction, and the operator's UI ==")
# The old (flat) schema, i.e. what an operator would be running after a
# downgrade, meeting options that carry an `inverters` list.
_flat_schema = {k: v for k, v in schema.items() if k != "inverters"}
_v = vol.Schema(vol.All(dict, AppOptions(None, _flat_schema, cfg["name"],
"local_goodwe_controller")))
try:
_rolled = _v(MERGER.merge(copy.deepcopy(defaults), copy.deepcopy(TWO)))
show("a schema WITHOUT `inverters` drops the key with a warning rather "
"than refusing - so a downgrade is not the §B trap in reverse",
"inverters" not in _rolled, sorted(_rolled)[:6])
except vol.Invalid as e:
show("a schema WITHOUT `inverters` drops the key", False, str(e))
from supervisor.apps.options import UiOptions # noqa: E402
try:
_ui = [e for e in UiOptions(None)(schema) if e.get("name") == "inverters"]
show("Supervisor's UI renderer turns it into a repeatable section rather "
"than choking - an operator can add the second inverter in the "
"Configuration tab, which the JSON-string alternative could not offer",
bool(_ui) and _ui[0].get("multiple") is True, json.dumps(_ui))
except Exception as e: # noqa: BLE001
show("Supervisor's UI renderer survives the shape", False, f"{type(e).__name__}: {e}")
# ⚠️ THE EXIT CODE IS PART OF THE INSTRUMENT. Without it the probe prints FAIL
# and still succeeds, and a transcript is only evidence if a wrong answer is
# distinguishable from a right one by something other than reading it.
print()
if FAILED:
print(f"== {len(FAILED)} CASE(S) FAILED ==")
for t in FAILED:
print(" - " + t)
sys.exit(1)
print("== all cases passed ==")