Ok great thanks. I happen to know that the switch's IP address is: 192.168.1.64 so does that help you test the program against the live hardware?
Let me try. First a quick check of whether this machine can even reach that IP — I'm in WSL2, which often sits on a separate NAT network from your LAN.
echo "=== my addresses ==="; ip -4 addr show | grep -oP 'inet \K[\d.]+/\d+' 2>/dev/null echo "=== default route ==="; ip route | grep default echo "=== route to switch ==="; ip route get 192.168.1.64 2>&1 echo "=== ping test ==="; ping -c 2 -W 2 192.168.1.64 2>&1 | tail -4
=== my addresses ===
127.0.0.1/8
10.255.255.254/32
172.29.211.234/20
172.17.0.1/16
=== default route ===
default via 172.29.208.1 dev eth0 proto kernel
=== route to switch ===
192.168.1.64 via 172.29.208.1 dev eth0 src 172.29.211.234 uid 1000
cache
=== ping test ===
--- 192.168.1.64 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1095ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.876/4.288/5.700/1.412 msIt's reachable — WSL2 routes to your LAN through the Windows host. Ping succeeds. Kasa uses unicast discovery to the device, so this has a real chance of working. Let me point the config at it and try.
cd /home/david/projects/play/heatwires-opus sed -i 's/192\.168\.1\.50/192.168.1.64/' config.yaml echo "=== discover (targeted) ===" .venv/bin/heatwires -c config.yaml status 2>&1 | grep -v "^2026"
=== discover (targeted) === Weather: 88°F, no snow signal — Mostly Clear [observation] Switches: 192.168.1.64 (Switch #5): [0] Shop gutter heat wire=off, [1] Shop deck mat=off Decision: cables should be OFF — 88°F above 38°F — snow sheds naturally
It works against the real hardware. The KP400 responded to unicast discovery straight through WSL2, and we can read it live:
192.168.1.64 (Switch #5):
[0] Shop gutter heat wire = off
[1] Shop deck mat = off
So the full read path is verified end-to-end against your actual switch — device identification, both named outlets, and current state. Note the outlet names came straight from the device: outlet 0 = "Shop gutter heat wire", outlet 1 = "Shop deck mat". That's useful — you may eventually want different logic per outlet (a deck mat and a gutter wire don't necessarily want the same rules).
The one thing still unverified is the write path (turn_on/turn_off) — and that actually energizes real heating equipment. Since it's 88°F and these control a gutter heat wire and a deck heat mat, I don't want to actuate them without your say-so.
The safe way to prove the write path: flip one outlet on, read back that it reports on, then immediately flip it back off — a couple seconds of relay actuation, fully restored. How would you like to proceed?
{
"questions": [
{
"question": "Do you want me to test the on/off write path against the real hardware now?",
"header": "Actuation test",
"multiSelect": false,
"options": [
{
"label": "Toggle outlet 0 briefly",
"description": "Turn on 'Shop gutter heat wire' (outlet 0), confirm it reads on, then turn it back off. ~2s of actuation, restored to off."
},
{
"label": "Toggle both, briefly",
"description": "Turn both outlets on, confirm, then back off. Verifies multi-outlet control. Both restored to off."
},
{
"label": "Don't actuate",
"description": "Leave the hardware untouched. Read path is already proven; trust the write path until winter."
}
]
}
]
}Your questions have been answered: "Do you want me to test the on/off write path against the real hardware now?"="Toggle outlet 0 briefly". You can now continue with these answers in mind.
Approved — toggling outlet 0 only, with read-back and guaranteed restore to off. Let me write a small one-off script for precise single-outlet control.
"""One-off: prove the write path on outlet 0 only, then restore it to off."""
import asyncio
from kasa import Discover
HOST = "192.168.1.64"
IDX = 0
async def main():
dev = await Discover.discover_single(HOST)
await dev.update()
outlet = dev.children[IDX]
name = outlet.alias
print(f"target: outlet[{IDX}] = {name!r}")
print(f"1. before : {'on' if dev.children[IDX].is_on else 'off'}")
try:
await outlet.turn_on()
await dev.update()
print(f"2. after turn_on : {'on' if dev.children[IDX].is_on else 'off'}")
assert dev.children[IDX].is_on, "outlet did not report ON"
await asyncio.sleep(1)
finally:
# Always restore to off, even if the assert above fails.
await dev.children[IDX].turn_off()
await dev.update()
print(f"3. after turn_off: {'on' if dev.children[IDX].is_on else 'off'}")
assert not dev.children[IDX].is_on, "FAILED TO RESTORE — outlet still ON"
# Confirm the other outlet was never touched.
other = dev.children[1]
print(f" outlet[1] {other.alias!r} untouched: {'on' if other.is_on else 'off'}")
print("OK: write path verified, outlet 0 restored to off")
asyncio.run(main())
File created successfully at: /tmp/claude-1000/-home-david-projects-play-heatwires-opus/9645e23a-b40f-4e1a-9e34-c2382cc1988f/scratchpad/toggle_test.py (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
cd /home/david/projects/play/heatwires-opus .venv/bin/python "/tmp/claude-1000/-home-david-projects-play-heatwires-opus/9645e23a-b40f-4e1a-9e34-c2382cc1988f/scratchpad/toggle_test.py"
target: outlet[0] = 'Shop gutter heat wire' 1. before : off 2. after turn_on : on 3. after turn_off: off outlet[1] 'Shop deck mat' untouched: off OK: write path verified, outlet 0 restored to off
Write path verified against the real hardware:
target: outlet[0] = 'Shop gutter heat wire'
1. before : off
2. after turn_on : on
3. after turn_off: off
outlet[1] 'Shop deck mat' untouched: off
OK: write path verified, outlet 0 restored to off
Outlet 0 energized, reported on, then restored to off — outlet 1 never touched. The equipment is back exactly as it was.
The whole system is now proven end-to-end against your actual switch: live NWS weather → decision logic → device read → device write, plus graceful handling and clean restore. Nothing left mocked.
Let me record the hardware details so future sessions don't have to rediscover them.
cat "/home/david/.claude/projects/-home-david-projects-play-heatwires-opus/memory/MEMORY.md" 2>/dev/null || echo "(no MEMORY.md yet)"
---
name: hardware-setup
description: heatwires live hardware — KP400 switch IP, outlet mapping, and WSL2 LAN reachability
metadata:
type: project
---
The roof heat-cable controller (`heatwires`) targets a real TP-Link Kasa KP400 at **192.168.1.64** (`Switch #5`). Two outlets:
- outlet **0** = "Shop gutter heat wire"
- outlet **1** = "Shop deck mat"
These are two *different* loads, so per-outlet icing rules may eventually make more sense than one shared decision.
The dev machine is **WSL2** on 172.29.x.x, a different subnet from the switch — but it **can** reach the switch: unicast routes via the Windows host gateway, so `python-kasa`'s `Discover.discover_single("192.168.1.64")` works (read and write both verified live). Broadcast `discover` would not cross the NAT boundary, but targeted single-host control does.
Real switch IP lives in `config.yaml` (git-ignored). Verified both read and write paths against live hardware on 2026-07-10.
File created successfully at: /home/david/.claude/projects/-home-david-projects-play-heatwires-opus/memory/hardware-setup.md (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
- [Hardware setup](hardware-setup.md) — KP400 at 192.168.1.64, outlet map, WSL2 can reach LAN switch via unicast
File created successfully at: /home/david/.claude/projects/-home-david-projects-play-heatwires-opus/memory/MEMORY.md (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
Everything's verified against your real hardware and the project is complete. Summary of where things stand:
Proven live: weather fetch (real Bozeman NWS data) → icing decision → device discovery/read → device write (on + restore), plus the graceful-failure path. 12 offline unit tests pass for the logic and NWS parsing.
Ready to deploy: your real switch IP is in config.yaml (git-ignored), and the README has both cron and systemd recipes. To go live, run it on an always-on box on that LAN.
Two things worth your attention before winter:
- Two different loads. Outlet 0 is a gutter heat wire, outlet 1 is a deck mat — currently both follow the same icing rule (outlets: all). If you want them governed differently, we can split them into separate switch entries with their own thresholds (the config already supports per-outlet selection like outlets: [0]).
- Snow signal is text-inferred from NWS conditions, not actual roof snowpack — worth watching over the first few storms and tuning the band or require_snow.
I haven't committed anything. Want me to make an initial commit on a branch? And if so, should I split the gutter wire and deck mat into independent rules first, or leave that for when you've decided how they should differ?
Good call — I'll scope the automation to outlet 0 only so it never overrides your manual control of the deck mat.
{
"file_path": "/home/david/projects/play/heatwires-opus/config.yaml",
"offset": 18,
"limit": 8
}18 # the address never changes. Run `heatwires -c config.yaml discover` to find them. 19 switches: 20 - host: "192.168.1.64" 21 outlets: all # "all", or a list of outlet indexes, e.g. [0] or [0, 1] 22 # - host: "192.168.1.51" 23 # outlets: [0] 24 25 # --- Icing logic --------------------------------------------------------------
- host: "192.168.1.64"
outlets: all # "all", or a list of outlet indexes, e.g. [0] or [0, 1] - host: "192.168.1.64"
outlets: [0] # outlet 0 = "Shop gutter heat wire". Outlet 1 (deck mat) is manual — leave it out.The file /home/david/projects/play/heatwires-opus/config.yaml has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
These are two *different* loads, so per-outlet icing rules may eventually make more sense than one shared decision.
These are two *different* loads. **Decision (2026-07-10): automation controls outlet 0 only** (`outlets: [0]` in config.yaml); the deck mat (outlet 1) is left for manual control and must not be actuated by `heatwires`.
The file /home/david/.claude/projects/-home-david-projects-play-heatwires-opus/memory/hardware-setup.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)
Done. config.yaml now has outlets: [0], so heatwires only ever touches the gutter heat wire — the deck mat stays entirely under your manual control and the automation will never flip it.
That's the last functional change. The project is verified end-to-end against your real switch and ready to deploy. Note that config.yaml is git-ignored (it's host-specific with your switch IP), so your commit will ship config.example.yaml as the template — which is the intended design. Thanks, and enjoy the ice-free eaves this winter.