refactor(adapters): migrate MQTT, Web and UI to commands and snapshots by stritti · Pull Request #218 · smart-swimmingpool/pool-controller

stritti · 2026-10-04T16:13:58Z

Draft architecture migration

Incrementally migrates adapter boundaries to the Core-1 typed-command / immutable-snapshot architecture while preserving existing MQTT/Web contracts.

Target

inbound runtime mutations become typed ControllerCommand values
one Core-1 application handler owns controller-state mutation
outbound adapters consume SystemSnapshot value copies
provisioning/authentication secrets and calibration stay behind dedicated service boundaries
legacy hand-over queues are removed only after equivalent typed-path coverage exists

Dependencies integrated in this branch

refactor(architecture): add typed controller command and snapshot contracts #214 controller architecture contracts
refactor(domain): store operation mode as typed enum #215 typed operation mode
refactor(application): add bounded typed controller command queue #216 bounded typed command queue
refactor(application): add coherent controller snapshot store #217 snapshot store

Implemented in this draft

instance-based ControllerCommandHandler composed in main.cpp
complete typed runtime-command contract with validation and persistence boundaries
MQTT callback reduced to fixed-size byte hand-over; no controller mutation on AsyncTCP
MQTT runtime topics translated to ControllerCommand on the Core-1 loop
independent timer-start and timer-end updates without stale-state reconstruction
manual pump policy centralized in the application handler
sensor-mapping updates routed through the typed handler
non-runtime MQTT operations remain delegated to their existing specialized services
native regression coverage for dispatch, bounded processing, timer updates, manual-pump guard and sensor mapping
OpenSpec task/design state kept in sync

Verified so far

Native Tests: green
PlatformIO CI: green on the current functional slice
cppcheck/cpplint and repository linters: green; final clang-format cleanup is being verified on the latest head
no open inline review threads at the last review check

Still draft

route Web runtime mutations through the same handler
route local UI mutations through the same handler
publish/populate SystemSnapshot from the Core-1 owner
migrate MQTT/Web/OLED/TFT read paths to snapshots
remove remaining direct mutable Nodes.hpp access from migrated adapters
remove the legacy MqttCommandQueue after typed hand-over equivalence is complete

The PR intentionally remains a draft until these migration steps and their contract tests are complete.

github-actions · 2026-10-04T16:14:38Z

❌MegaLinter analysis: Error

Descriptor	Linter	Files	Errors	Elapsed time
✅ ACTION	actionlint	8	0	0.78s
✅ BASH	bash-exec	2	0	0.65s
✅ BASH	shellcheck	2	0	0.7s
✅ BASH	shfmt	2	0	0.01s
✅ C	clang-format	1	0	0.04s
✅ C	cppcheck	1	0	0.03s
✅ C	cpplint	1	0	0.34s
❌ CPP	clang-format	106	2	0.95s
✅ CPP	cppcheck	106	0	7.48s
✅ CPP	cpplint	106	0	8.71s
✅ EDITORCONFIG	editorconfig-checker	295	0	0.51s
✅ JSON	jsonlint	6	0	0.14s
✅ JSON	v8r	6	0	4.07s
✅ MARKDOWN	markdownlint	110	0	3.92s
✅ YAML	yamllint	27	0	0.78s

Detailed Issues

❌ CPP / clang-format - 2 errors

src/ControllerSnapshotPublisher.cpp:135:73: error: code should be clang-formatted [-Wclang-format-violations]
  const std::uint32_t detectedRefreshSeconds = settings.loopInterval > 0
                                                                        ^
src/ControllerSnapshotPublisher.cpp:136:56: error: code should be clang-formatted [-Wclang-format-violations]
    ? static_cast<std::uint32_t>(settings.loopInterval)
                                                       ^

Notices

⚠️ Your configuration references items that have been removed from MegaLinter and are ignored: MAKEFILE, MAKEFILE_CHECKMAKE, MARKDOWN_MARKDOWN_LINK_CHECK. See Removed linters to find their replacements.

See detailed reports in MegaLinter artifacts

Your project could benefit from a custom flavor, which would allow you to run only the linters you need, and thus improve runtime performances. (Skip this info by defining FLAVOR_SUGGESTIONS: false)

Documentation: Custom Flavors
Command: npx mega-linter-runner@10.1.0 --custom-flavor-setup --custom-flavor-linters ACTION_ACTIONLINT,BASH_EXEC,BASH_SHELLCHECK,BASH_SHFMT,C_CPPCHECK,C_CPPLINT,C_CLANG_FORMAT,CPP_CPPCHECK,CPP_CPPLINT,CPP_CLANG_FORMAT,EDITORCONFIG_EDITORCONFIG_CHECKER,JSON_JSONLINT,JSON_V8R,MARKDOWN_MARKDOWNLINT,YAML_YAMLLINT

Show us your support by starring ⭐ the repository

github-actions · 2026-10-04T16:15:11Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	48.2%
Branch Coverage	74.8%
Lines Hit/Total	392/814
Branches Hit/Total	178/238

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-04T16:25:20Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	48.2%
Branch Coverage	74.8%
Lines Hit/Total	392/814
Branches Hit/Total	178/238

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-04T20:10:25Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	48.2%
Branch Coverage	74.8%
Lines Hit/Total	392/814
Branches Hit/Total	178/238

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-04T20:18:12Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	48.2%
Branch Coverage	74.8%
Lines Hit/Total	392/814
Branches Hit/Total	178/238

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-04T20:19:31Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	48.2%
Branch Coverage	74.8%
Lines Hit/Total	392/814
Branches Hit/Total	178/238

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T06:35:00Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	48.2%
Branch Coverage	74.8%
Lines Hit/Total	392/814
Branches Hit/Total	178/238

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T06:40:28Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.0%
Branch Coverage	75.4%
Lines Hit/Total	439/861
Branches Hit/Total	184/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T06:52:23Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.0%
Branch Coverage	75.4%
Lines Hit/Total	439/861
Branches Hit/Total	184/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T06:53:31Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.0%
Branch Coverage	75.4%
Lines Hit/Total	439/861
Branches Hit/Total	184/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T06:54:42Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.0%
Branch Coverage	75.4%
Lines Hit/Total	439/861
Branches Hit/Total	184/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T06:55:48Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.0%
Branch Coverage	75.4%
Lines Hit/Total	439/861
Branches Hit/Total	184/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T06:56:42Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.5%
Branch Coverage	76.2%
Lines Hit/Total	443/861
Branches Hit/Total	186/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T06:57:45Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	—%
Branch Coverage	—%
Lines Hit/Total	0/0
Branches Hit/Total	0/0

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T06:59:40Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.0%
Branch Coverage	76.2%
Lines Hit/Total	443/868
Branches Hit/Total	186/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T07:01:10Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.8%
Branch Coverage	76.2%
Lines Hit/Total	450/868
Branches Hit/Total	186/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T07:06:26Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.7%
Branch Coverage	76.2%
Lines Hit/Total	447/865
Branches Hit/Total	186/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T07:07:39Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.7%
Branch Coverage	76.2%
Lines Hit/Total	447/865
Branches Hit/Total	186/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-05T07:08:53Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	51.7%
Branch Coverage	76.2%
Lines Hit/Total	447/865
Branches Hit/Total	186/244

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-06T13:19:27Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	52.9%
Branch Coverage	77.7%
Lines Hit/Total	467/883
Branches Hit/Total	202/260

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-06T13:39:39Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	52.9%
Branch Coverage	77.7%
Lines Hit/Total	467/883
Branches Hit/Total	202/260

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-06T13:41:23Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	52.9%
Branch Coverage	77.7%
Lines Hit/Total	467/883
Branches Hit/Total	202/260

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-06T13:43:51Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	52.9%
Branch Coverage	77.7%
Lines Hit/Total	467/883
Branches Hit/Total	202/260

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-11T16:59:04Z

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-11T16:59:05Z

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-11T16:59:12Z

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-11T16:59:12Z

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-11T16:59:16Z

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-11T16:59:27Z

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-11T16:59:29Z

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 87829b282b

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

github-actions · 2026-10-11T17:00:57Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	89.2%
Branch Coverage	70.4%
Lines Hit/Total	791/887
Branches Hit/Total	439/624

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-12T05:47:44Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	89.2%
Branch Coverage	70.4%
Lines Hit/Total	791/887
Branches Hit/Total	439/624

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

github-actions · 2026-10-12T05:50:46Z

Native Test Coverage

Metric	Value
Line Coverage	89.2%
Branch Coverage	70.4%
Lines Hit/Total	791/887
Branches Hit/Total	439/624

Report from native unit tests (ASan + gcov).

chatgpt-codex-connector

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: fc1aaa211b

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-12T05:55:15Z

+    settings.tempCircThreshold = command.value;
+    return saveSettings();


Roll back circulation settings after save failures

When NVS cannot be opened, this branch returns rejection after leaving settings.tempCircThreshold changed; the factor and maximum-runtime branches have the same behavior. The MQTT adapter then calls publishStates(), which reports the rejected value, and any later successful configuration save persists it. Preserve the previous setting and restore it when saveSettings() fails, as the setpoint branches already do.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-10-12T05:55:15Z

+    settings.timezoneIndex = command.integerValue;
+    if (!saveSettings()) {
+      return false;


Restore the timezone setting when persistence fails

If ConfigManager::save() fails for an MQTT timezone command, the handler returns false but leaves settings.timezoneIndex at the requested value while skipping setTimezoneIndex(). Consequently Home Assistant is republished the new timezone label even though the running clock still uses the old timezone, and an unrelated later save can persist the rejected value. Save the previous index and restore it on this failure path.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

This was referenced Oct 4, 2026

refactor(architecture): introduce composition root and board platform layer #221

Draft

feat: multicore task architecture #170

Draft

This was referenced Oct 5, 2026

refactor(architecture): add typed controller command and snapshot contracts #214

Merged

contract: extend read model before adapter migration (epoch, min-heap, SSID, batch, audit sources) #222

Open

stritti force-pushed the refactor/adapter-command-snapshot-migration branch from 5b4c852 to a22f57d Compare October 6, 2026 13:17

stritti added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2026

chore(ci): apply #218 web slice

b82550e

stritti added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2026

chore(ci): stage #218 web slice patch script

df9ec6f

stritti added 2 commits October 11, 2026 18:58

docs: wrap Olimex implementation plan

952276c

docs: wrap NORVI calibration plan

7a28875

docs: wrap adapter migration design

a9c03cf

docs: wrap architecture contract design

7e1afb7

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Oct 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread src/ControllerSnapshotPublisher.cpp Outdated

Comment thread src/ControllerCommandHandler.cpp Outdated

Comment thread src/ControllerSnapshotPublisher.cpp

Comment thread src/ControllerCommandHandler.cpp Outdated

Comment thread src/ConfigManager.cpp Outdated

stritti added 11 commits October 12, 2026 07:44

fix: make reviewed command mutations atomic

7860f31

fix: keep sensor mapping cache retryable

c1638b3

docs: clarify sensor mapping cache contract

8c04553

refactor: cache detected sensor inventory

ea55a48

fix: bound Dallas inventory reads in snapshots

44f617b

test: expose Dallas inventory read count

4809cd3

test: model transient sensor mapping read failures

d0a5926

test: initialize sensor mapping failure hook

bee0a6f

test: cover reviewed command failure paths

bd689e9

test: cover bounded and invalid Dallas snapshots

6fecad0

docs: record reviewed adapter invariants

d66ba48

stritti added 3 commits October 12, 2026 07:49

fix: support ESP32 C++ standard in mapping read result

685069d

style: format snapshot refresh interval

6c9ec67

test: use comparison assertion for inventory reads

fc1aaa2

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot reviewed Oct 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

		settings.tempCircThreshold = command.value;
		return saveSettings();

Conversation

stritti commented Oct 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Draft architecture migration

Target

Dependencies integrated in this branch

Implemented in this draft

Verified so far

Still draft

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

❌MegaLinter analysis: Error

Detailed Issues

Notices

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 4, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 4, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 4, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 4, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 4, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 5, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 6, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 6, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 6, 2026

Native Test Coverage

Uh oh!

github-actions Bot commented Oct 6, 2026

stritti commented Oct 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

github-actions Bot commented Oct 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading