29299d17daf0d955dd8fa187b098ac98d47b2b58
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 logan
|
57fbbdf0d2 |
feat(ui): a shell a phone can be held in
Plan 016 B2, phase 1. Below 600px the grid drops its sidebar column, `bottom-nav` becomes the primary navigation, and the shell fits the viewport instead of scrolling sideways out of it. 600 rather than the sidebar's own 900, because 900 is a laptop and the answer there is a narrower sidebar, which is still a sidebar. Under 600 there is no room for one at all: 360px of viewport over a 200px nav is not a layout. **The tab bar is four destinations and a way to everything else.** Three to five is where touch targets stop being thumb-sized -- eleven over 360px is 32px each -- so the four are the ones plan 016's subset says a phone is for, and "More" opens the *existing* `app-sidebar` in a drawer rather than listing the destinations a second time. Two lists is two places to add the next view to. That reuse has a cost this found the hard way: a shared component brings its `data-testid`s with it, so rendering the drawer's sidebar unconditionally put a second `nav-home` (and ten siblings) in the DOM and **failed 30 existing specs** with "resolved to 2 elements" -- on a desktop viewport, where this element is `display: none` and the drawer can never open. It renders only while the drawer is open, and the component test asserts the absence, because the failure is invisible from inside the component and lands in files nobody touched. **What made the shell overflow was minimums, not padding.** Measured at 360px: the body was 652px wide, because a `min-width` in a flex row is a hard floor and a grid item's implicit minimum is its content. So `min-width: 0` on the boxes between the viewport and the content, and each component stands its own non-essential parts down in its *own* stylesheet -- search-bar's 200px floor, job-indicator's label (the visible one; the live region that announces it is untouched), audio-player's seek bar and volume. A media query inside a shadow root is answered by the viewport, so this is the component saying what it drops rather than the shell reaching in. Volume goes because the hardware keys own it on a phone, which is the same reason mediacontrols' Android handler implements no volume callback. Seeking goes because 4px is not a thumb target; it belongs to the full-screen now-playing view, which is the next phase. An existing spec therefore asserts the opposite of what it did: layout-overflow's 320px case used to require that the 464px behind `overflow: hidden` could be *scrolled to*, which was the remedy available while the shell had one layout. It reflows now -- 320px in a 320px viewport, exactly -- and reflow is what WCAG 1.4.10 asked for. |
||
|
logan
|
df2e9ea777 |
docs: record what the Android work established and disproved
Section A of plan 016 is closed and B1 is decided, so the three tenses move together: CLAUDE.md for what mediacontrols now is, the skill for what to run, NOTES.md for what was measured and when. The entry worth reading is the one that disproves a claim written here earlier in the same session. Dropping x86_64 was expected to make make android-install fail with INSTALL_FAILED_NO_MATCHING_ABIS. Measured, it installs and launches: Google's google_apis x86_64 images carry arm64 translation (abilist = x86_64,arm64-v8a), so the loader maps lib/arm64/libwails.so and runs it. It dies before any of our code with SIGILL, and the disassembly names the reason exactly -- `mrs x0, ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1`, Go's internal/cpu reading the arm64 feature register at runtime init, which the translator does not implement. So no Go binary starts under it, and that is not a property of this app. Which closes the last plausible shortcut. There are now three distinct ways this app fails on an x86_64 Android -- seccomp on the x86_64 build, an unimplemented system register on the translated arm64 one, and a real device still unverified -- and none of them is a bug in it. A phone remains the only verification path. Plan 016 also carries the B2 scope, now decided rather than recommended: option 1's data model with option 2's surface. The phone gets home, library browse, now-playing-as-a-view, the queue, search and playlists; it does not get autotag, downloads, Explore or the 93-control Settings page, and each of those has a reason written beside it. One rule for the work: no view forks, because a phone template that copies a view's is two templates to fix every bug in. |
||
|
logan
|
ced537ecf2 | docs: record which Android blockers are now cleared | ||
|
logan
|
78576b8da9 |
docs: assess what Android parity would take
Plan 015 shipped a pipeline; this is what stands between that and an app worth installing. Verified against the source and the generated manifest rather than guessed. Four blockers, and none of them is porting work. The manifest requests no storage or media permission at all, so the app can read no music -- and READ_MEDIA_AUDIO would not be enough, because it grants access through MediaStore while this app's whole model is absolute paths: audio_files.file_path is the primary key of ownership and every GetFilePathsBy... query exists to hand paths to the player. The first-run wizard calls DirectoryPicker, which Wails documents as returning an error on Android, and the wizard intercepts pointer events until a library exists, so the app is inert rather than merely empty. mpris_linux.go is compiled in, because android implies linux. And the scaffold's foreground service is typed dataSync rather than mediaPlayback, with no MediaSession and no audio focus, so playback dies at screen lock and there are no lock-screen controls. They are all the same question: is the Android app a librarian or a player? The desktop app is a librarian -- it scans folders, dedupes covers, rewrites tags on disk -- and that model rests on owning a filesystem, which is exactly what Android declines to give. So the plan argues that parity is the wrong target and lays out three coherent products instead, recommending a MediaStore-backed player. Four things are worth doing whatever is decided, and the highest information-per-minute one needs no code: run the published APK on a real phone. Nothing in sections A or B has been observed on Android, because the x86_64 emulator cannot run the app and emulator 37 refuses arm64 images on an x86_64 host. |