THE PROBE. A control inside a CLOSED <details> is laid out but sits
outside its collapsed parent's box, so elementFromPoint at its centre
returns an ancestor and it reports OCCLUDED — 23 of them on sindra-set,
every one a false positive. Verified both ways before believing it:
closed, elementFromPoint returns div.gallery; opened, the button itself,
and a real trial click lands on it.
Opening every <details> rather than skipping them is the deliberate
choice. Skipping would make the probe quiet by declaring put-away
controls out of scope, and the add-note button inside
details.item-addnote is exactly the class of control this instrument
exists to check. Fourth false-positive class this probe has grown a
guard for; the other three are already in its header.
THE FLAG PARSER. Three cases that silently break and are cheap to
pin: the flags on either side of the glob (a session should not have to
remember which), a why carrying quotes, an em-dash, a newline and
non-ASCII, and --why with no value after it, which must produce usage
rather than eating the booth name and creating a booth called nothing.
313 tests.
The docstring claimed a no-argument run probes 'the booth index and
every booth linked from it'. main() probes argv[1:] or the default URL
and follows nothing — so a coverage claim that reads as 26 pages has
always been one. A probe that overstates its reach is worse than one
that states a small reach honestly, because this is the instrument
standing in for a class of bug the test suite structurally cannot see.
Also records the zsh trap that hid it: an unquoted $URLS holding twelve
space-separated URLs arrives as ONE argument, and the probe cheerfully
reports '2 page(s)' while covering two.
Operator: "release button covers delete button". Measured before touching
anything: release 58x24 at (323,266), × 30x30 at (349,268) — 30x22 px of
overlap on a 30px button, and `elementFromPoint` at the ×'s centre returned the
release form. The × I added yesterday was 100% unclickable from the moment it
shipped.
Cause: both were `position:absolute` on the same corner, each with its own
guessed offset, and `release` is the later sibling so it won. Replaced with one
flex row positioned once — release left, × right at the card corner where the
ephemeral lane's × already lives, so muscle memory transfers and neither can
drift back on top of the other when a label changes width.
Verified by measurement, not inspection: overlap 0 px, and clicks at each
control's centre now land on that control. The ephemeral lane's × and ★ were
re-checked and are unaffected.
ADDS scripts/layout-probe.py, because markup inspection STRUCTURALLY cannot see
this and I have now shipped two dead controls in two days by reading templates
instead of rendering them. It asks a real browser what a click at each
control's centre would hit.
It took four iterations to become trustworthy and the failures are the point:
1. `top.contains(el)` counted an ANCESTOR overlay as a hit -- the exact case
it exists to catch. Version one reported OK for a real overlay.
2. elementFromPoint is viewport-relative, so everything below the fold read
as occluded and buried the real findings.
3. getBoundingClientRect() on a WRAPPED INLINE element is the union of its
line boxes, whose centre lands in the gutter between them -- three zip
links reported occluded by their own parent. Real geometry, wrong question.
Only the fourth version fires on a genuine overlay while staying silent on the
clean page. Both controls were run; a probe never seen to fail proves nothing.
173 tests pass.
Vuong Hoang
vh