glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
ffbabea8ce
AC 6 was not met for the reduction main.py actually hands decide(). The
reviewer removed the per-pack grading twice and the 19-file suite stayed green
both times. No shipped behaviour changes here - app/ is untouched. What changes
is what observes it.
WHY BOTH SURVIVED, and it is this repository's recurring defect landing on this
card's own Decision 2: under any rule-8-valid config every pack's
pack_floor_pct() equals peak_soc_floor, so `floors` is a list of IDENTICAL
numbers and max/min/first/last are four spellings of one answer. The only check
using a cut-out ABOVE the EMS floor - 12c's `_n1_deep` - ran on a roster of ONE,
where every reduction agrees. So no check ever evaluated binding_soc_floor() on
two packs whose floors differ. And the degeneracy is not a defence: this PR's own
argument ("unreachable is a claim about today's rule ordering, and
validate_startup_config() is also sim/inject.py's entry point") justifies writing
the reduction and equally obliges grading it.
* test_peakguard.py part 12c2 - NEW. binding_soc_floor() on a roster whose
per-pack floors ALL DIFFER: four SIMULATED cut-outs 30/25/40/35 %, each
strictly above peak_soc_floor, so max (40), min (25), first (30), last (35)
and the mean (32.5) are five different numbers and the extremes sit at
INTERIOR roster positions. Two packs structurally cannot separate those -
there max==last and min==first - and neither can three; four is the smallest
roster that can. Precondition is its own check (habit 1); the counterfactual
raises ONE pack - the last, neither extreme - past the old maximum and the
answer follows (habit 7); peak_soc_floor is then lifted above every cut-out
to grade the other side of the conjunction.
* test_peakguard.py part 12g - REWRITTEN as behaviour (habit 4). The old
assertion was `"self.packs" in <the unparsed call site>`, which `self.packs[:1]`
still satisfies. It now drives REAL Controller.cycle()s on a two-pack roster,
both packs at the same SoC, and reads PeakDecision.soc_floor - the argument,
echoed back by the shipped decide(). The cut-outs are the only thing varied,
and the SAME PAIR is carried in BOTH ORDERS.
* ⚠️ TWO MORE SURVIVORS, found by this round's own battery and recorded rather
than quietly repaired. (a) The first cut of 12g varied only pack B's cut-out,
so `self.packs[-1:]` (+5 bytes) agreed with the roster on both runs and stayed
green across all 19 files; the swapped pair closes it, and between the two
directions no single-position slice passes all three runs. (b)
binding_soc_floor()'s EMPTY-roster branch rewritten to `return None`
(-43 bytes) was green too - a defensive branch nothing in the suite reached.
Both directions of it are pinned now.
* wired_over_limit() gained a prepare(ctl) hook, inside its retry loop so every
attempt grades the same site.
* In-process mutation rows 22, 22b and 23 record all four survivors.
Nine further source mutations went through the harness on the fixed tree
(binding_soc_floor -> floors[0] / floors[-1], pack_floor_pct conjoining with
min, pack_permissions grading against packs[0], `any` -> `all` on the unknown
floor, Controller.packs reversed, decide(soc=) taking inverters[0].soc, and the
two survivors above). Seven were red on first run; the two survivors are now red
as well. Three of the nine have a ZERO byte delta and still went red, which is
the direction stale bytecode cannot fabricate - and the harness purged anyway.
MANDATORY PROOF, all in the CI image over a tree rsynced to a plain path and
bind-mounted :ro, bytecode entry count printed before and after the purge:
each of the four mutations now takes test_peakguard.py RED, and the unmutated
tree is 19/19 green (twice, plus test_peakguard.py five times in isolation -
card CI-06's flake did not reappear). The zero-byte one was proved to have RUN rather than
assumed: dis.get_instructions LOAD_GLOBALs were [float, pack_floor_pct, any,
min] and binding_soc_floor() returned 25.0 on the 12c2 roster where the shipped
code returns 40.0.
No measurement of inverter B appears anywhere. It does not physically exist.
Every second-pack and fourth-pack figure added here is SIMULATED and labelled at
its definition; only inverter A's 10 % is read off hardware. No hardware was
touched.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
GoodWe RS485 Controller — Home Assistant add-on repository
Replaces a GoodWe battery inverter's vendor controller with a local one: holds net grid exchange at zero by emulating the inverter's smart meter over RS485, and runs the monthly battery maintenance cycle the vendor box was doing.
repository.yaml add-on repository metadata
goodwe_controller/ the add-on
config.yaml manifest + options schema (the per-site config form)
app/ the controller
control.py the control law — pure functions, no I/O
maintenance.py the monthly cycle state machine
hass.py Supervisor/Core API access
store.py persistent state in /data
mqtt.py optional status entities
web.py ingress UI
main.py orchestration, heartbeat, failsafe behaviour
test_control.py runnable checks — no framework needed
test_maintenance.py runnable checks — walks a full cycle in fake time
DOCS.md the add-on's documentation tab
MUTATION.md how to run a mutation so the result means something
tools/mutation_run.sh the mutation harness - purges bytecode, then grades
firmware/goodwe-master.yaml ESPHome config for the T-CAN485
estop/rs485_log.py optional RS485 e-stop / bus witness
docs/GoodWe-RS485-Field-Guide.pdf the guide techs carry (10pp, A4)
docs/build_guide.py its single source - rebuilds the HTML and PDF
FIELD-GUIDE.md how to edit and rebuild the guide
Picking this up after a break? Read HANDOVER.md first — current state,
what is known broken, and what to do next.
Install
Settings → Add-ons → Add-on store → ⋮ → Repositories → add
https://gittea.kammenstraatha.duckdns.org/admin/goodwe-addon
then install GoodWe RS485 Controller.
⚠️ The repository must be PUBLIC for this to work. Home Assistant clones it
anonymously; against a private repo the store shows nothing and gives no useful
error. If it must stay private, install locally instead: copy
goodwe_controller/ into the machine's /addons/ folder, then
ha store reload — it appears as a Local add-on.
⚠️ Bump version: in goodwe_controller/config.yaml for every change.
Supervisor keys the built image by that version, so without a bump it silently
reuses the old image and your fix appears not to work — on your bench and on
every client's machine.
Requires Home Assistant OS or Supervised. Add-ons cannot be installed on HA Container or Core.
Read this first
The inverter holds its last command forever. It has no meter-timeout of its own — a controller that dies mid-command leaves the battery running until a human intervenes. Measured on real hardware: 5 kW of discharge held for 113 seconds after a controller went silent.
Three layers exist because of that, and only the third covers the Home Assistant machine itself dying:
- ESP32 watchdog — no fresh setpoint for ~30 s → command 0 W, and keep commanding it.
- Wind-down before firmware updates — 0 W written before the update starts.
- RS485 e-stop (optional) — writes 0 W after 30 s of total bus silence.
Sites sold without the e-stop must have the acknowledgement in FIELD-GUIDE.md
§10 signed.
Development
The control law and the maintenance machine are pure Python with no Home Assistant imports, so they run anywhere:
cd goodwe_controller
python3 test_control.py
python3 test_maintenance.py
Both must pass before shipping any change. To prove a check bites - the way
almost every claim in this repository was established - mutate the module and
run tools/mutation_run.sh, which clears __pycache__ first. It is not
optional: a same-size edit reverted inside one second leaves CPython reusing the
old bytecode, and the run grades code that is not there. goodwe_controller/MUTATION.md
has the mechanism, the measurement, and what the flags do not do. They are not unit-test theatre —
each assertion corresponds to a rule whose absence produced an observed failure
on real hardware, and the comments in control.py say which.
Compatibility
Check the serial number, not the model name. Characters 6-8 of the serial are the platform tag:
| tag | platform | verdict |
|---|---|---|
ESU EMU ESA BPS BPU EMJ IJL |
105 — ES/EM/BP, AA55-era meter bus | supported |
SPB SPN |
745 — SBP G2 (GW…-SBP-20) |
no |
ESN ESC |
745 — ES G2 (GW…-ES-20) |
no |
ETU EHU BTU … |
205/745/753 — ET/EH/BT hybrids | no |
SDT DST MSU NSU … |
PV-only inverters — no battery to control | no |
A "-20" or "G2" suffix means a different platform with a different meter
protocol. The tags come from the goodwe library's PLATFORM_105_MODELS, which
is also what Home Assistant's own integration uses to pick a protocol.
- GoodWe ES / BP family inverters (AA55 / RS485 meter-bus generation)
- The protocol is reverse-engineered. There is no vendor contract, and a firmware change on GoodWe's side could break every installation at once. Say so when you sell it.