checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m16s
Four cards built the price stack and nothing traded on it. app/arbitrage.py is §10.1's priority 3, and it consumes all four rather than re-deciding anything: whether a trade is permitted at all, on which two hours, against which widened threshold is TariffPlan.arbitrage()'s answer, and that answer cannot be obtained without first saying whether the peak guard is holding. §9.1's "peak shaving outranks arbitrage" is therefore honoured structurally - there is no path to a spread that skips the question - and again in the arbiter, where P_PEAK (50) clamps a claim filed at P_ARBITRAGE (30). A guard that never ran is not a guard that is clear. On meter_source off the peak guard is never evaluated; that third state is carried as None and refuses, because charging at the rail creates the billed quantity while nothing measures the quarter. validate.py refuses that configuration too, along with arbitrage armed with no price source and a SoC floor at or above the ceiling. §17: never export into a negative price. The guard is on the hour being sold into, not on the spread - a day priced -0.30 .. -0.05 clears any threshold and its dearest hour is still negative. Buying in a negative hour stays allowed. resolve_tariff() may open an HTTPS connection and the tick feeds the ESP32 heartbeat, so the fetch runs in its own task at a 30 min cadence and the tick reads an attribute and an age bound. test_arbitrage.py section 8 asserts that structurally on the shipped AST: a fetch put back on cycle() is red. AC4 is NOT met and is not restated - this repository holds no price history. Section 7 replays a synthetic year and asserts the property that does not need real prices: every executed round trip cleared its own widened requirement, and zero discharges landed in the 522 negative-priced hours. At the shipped 0.10 EUR/kWh threshold a realistic Belgian day/night site does not trade at all. Reported, not tuned: that number and FCST-03's widening factors are one product decision and it is the owner's. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC
126 lines
5.2 KiB
Python
126 lines
5.2 KiB
Python
"""Who gets to command the inverter, and why.
|
|
|
|
Every strategy - the grid-following loop, the maintenance cycle, peak shaving,
|
|
the safety stops - stops writing the setpoint directly and instead returns a
|
|
CLAIM each cycle. This module resolves the claims into one number.
|
|
|
|
⚠️ THE REASON THIS EXISTS. Two controllers writing one actuator is the failure
|
|
this whole system is built to avoid: it is what the vendor controller did to the
|
|
reference site, and §4.4 of the project notes calls it out by name. Before this
|
|
module, "exactly one writer" was a convention held up by an if/else ladder and
|
|
careful reading. With an EV charger and a heat pump eventually wanting the same
|
|
battery, a convention is not good enough - so precedence is now a first-class
|
|
object with one rule and a printable explanation.
|
|
|
|
THE RULE, in full:
|
|
|
|
1. The highest-priority `set` claim wins. If there is no set claim at all, the
|
|
target is 0 W - fail toward inaction, never "hold the last value".
|
|
2. Every `limit` claim whose priority is >= the winning set's priority is then
|
|
applied. Most restrictive wins.
|
|
3. Contradictory limits (lo > hi) are a BUG, not a tie to break: command 0 W
|
|
and say so loudly.
|
|
|
|
Clause 2 is the interesting one. It is what makes "money outranks maintenance"
|
|
a consequence of the priorities instead of a special case somebody can forget:
|
|
the maintenance charge-only limit binds the loop, but a higher-priority peak
|
|
shaving claim simply is not bound by it.
|
|
"""
|
|
|
|
from dataclasses import dataclass, field
|
|
from math import inf
|
|
|
|
# Priorities live here and nowhere else. The moment these become magic numbers
|
|
# scattered through the strategies, the whole point of this module is lost.
|
|
P_SAFETY = 100 # stopped, inputs missing, shutting down, device limits
|
|
P_MAINTENANCE = 60 # maintenance owns the actuator outright (drain, hold)
|
|
P_PEAK = 50 # capacity-tariff peak shaving - costs real money
|
|
P_MAINT_SHAPE = 40 # maintenance shaping the loop (charge-only)
|
|
# OPT-04. §10.1 priority 3 - price arbitrage. ⚠️ ITS POSITION IS THE SPEC, NOT A
|
|
# preference: P_PEAK (50) is ABOVE it so clause 2 lets the capacity-tariff floor
|
|
# clamp an arbitrage charge, which is §9.1's "give peak shaving priority over
|
|
# arbitrage whenever the two conflict" expressed as arithmetic rather than as a
|
|
# rule somebody has to remember. P_MAINT_SHAPE (40) is above it so a speculative
|
|
# spread cannot override the pack's balancing cycle. P_LOOP (10) is below it
|
|
# because trading against the meter is the entire point - the grid-following
|
|
# loop would otherwise cancel every charge the moment it created import.
|
|
P_ARBITRAGE = 30 # price arbitrage - trades against the meter on purpose
|
|
P_LOOP = 10 # ordinary grid-following
|
|
|
|
SET = "set"
|
|
LIMIT = "limit"
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dataclass(frozen=True)
|
|
class Claim:
|
|
source: str
|
|
priority: int
|
|
kind: str = SET
|
|
value: float = 0.0 # for SET
|
|
lo: float = -inf # for LIMIT
|
|
hi: float = inf # for LIMIT
|
|
reason: str = ""
|
|
|
|
@staticmethod
|
|
def set(source: str, priority: int, value: float, reason: str = "") -> "Claim":
|
|
return Claim(source, priority, SET, value=value, reason=reason)
|
|
|
|
@staticmethod
|
|
def limit(source: str, priority: int, lo: float = -inf, hi: float = inf,
|
|
reason: str = "") -> "Claim":
|
|
return Claim(source, priority, LIMIT, lo=lo, hi=hi, reason=reason)
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dataclass
|
|
class Resolution:
|
|
target_w: float
|
|
winner: str # which source set the value
|
|
bound_by: str | None = None # which limit actually changed it, if any
|
|
contradiction: bool = False
|
|
considered: list = field(default_factory=list)
|
|
|
|
def explain(self) -> str:
|
|
"""One line an operator can act on - this is the point of the module."""
|
|
if self.contradiction:
|
|
return f"CONTRADICTION between limits - commanding 0 W ({self.winner})"
|
|
if self.bound_by:
|
|
return f"{self.winner} -> {self.target_w:.0f} W, limited by {self.bound_by}"
|
|
return f"{self.winner} -> {self.target_w:.0f} W"
|
|
|
|
|
|
def resolve(claims: list) -> Resolution:
|
|
sets = sorted((c for c in claims if c.kind == SET),
|
|
key=lambda c: c.priority, reverse=True)
|
|
|
|
if sets:
|
|
winner = sets[0]
|
|
else:
|
|
# No strategy asked for anything. That is not "carry on as before" - the
|
|
# inverter holds its last command forever, so silence must mean zero.
|
|
winner = Claim.set("failsafe", P_SAFETY, 0.0, "no claim was made")
|
|
|
|
lo, hi = -inf, inf
|
|
lo_src = hi_src = None
|
|
for c in claims:
|
|
if c.kind != LIMIT or c.priority < winner.priority:
|
|
continue
|
|
if c.lo > lo:
|
|
lo, lo_src = c.lo, c
|
|
if c.hi < hi:
|
|
hi, hi_src = c.hi, c
|
|
|
|
considered = [f"{c.source}:{c.kind}" for c in claims]
|
|
|
|
if lo > hi:
|
|
return Resolution(0.0, winner.source, bound_by=None,
|
|
contradiction=True, considered=considered)
|
|
|
|
target = max(lo, min(hi, winner.value))
|
|
bound_by = None
|
|
if target != winner.value:
|
|
binder = lo_src if target == lo else hi_src
|
|
if binder is not None:
|
|
bound_by = f"{binder.source}({binder.reason})" if binder.reason else binder.source
|
|
|
|
return Resolution(float(target), winner.source, bound_by, False, considered)
|