Since #71 the phone's "More" is a bottom sheet, and at the reference
viewport it does not fit: measured at 424x439 with the seed's eight
destinations, the body is scrollHeight 412 against clientHeight 373, so
39px is below a fold nothing announces. Where the cut lands on a row
boundary the sheet ends in a clean edge that reads as the end of the
list, which is what #207 fixed one sheet over.
The rule is that sheet's, not a second answer to the same question:
#207's two background layers move into styles/sheet-scroll.css.ts and
both sheets adopt them, with the colour left to each host as
--yj-sheet-surface. The nav sheet paints the sidebar's --yj-bg-surface
and the context sheet the menus' --yj-bg-elevated, so a shared rule that
hard-coded either would draw that seam across the other one.
The half that makes it visible is that nothing inside the sheet may
repaint the surface. These are layers on the scroller, and app-sidebar's
host carries the same grey -- in the shell its own background, in the
sheet a second opaque copy of the sheet's, over the fade. With the
fragment adopted and that rule missing, the running app measured a flat
52,58,64 to the bottom edge with 39px still below: the defect unchanged,
with every assertion about background-attachment passing. menu-surface
already meets it from the other side, where the sheet's panel is
background-color: transparent.
Closes#210
The bottom sheet's body has scrolled since #60 and said nothing about
it. Measured at 424x439, the track list's menu ended at y=470 with the
fold at 439 — reachable, since the body is `overflow-y: auto`, but with
no affordance saying so, and worst where the cut lands on a row
boundary and the sheet ends in a clean edge that reads as the end of
the list.
The cap stays: `menu-surface`'s own comment says a surface covering the
whole screen is a page, not a sheet. What changes is that the body
draws a fade, from two background layers whose *attachments* are the
feature — a shadow pinned to the box (`scroll`) under a cover of the
sheet's own colour painted at the end of the content (`local`), which
scrolls up over the shadow exactly when there is nothing more to see.
So the fade is absent on a menu that fits, present the moment one does
not, and gone again at the end of the list, with no scroll listener and
nothing reaching into `wa-dialog`'s shadow root for the scroller.
`background-attachment` is Chrome 4; the reference device is Chrome 113.
The other two options in the report — a shortened last row, or a max
height that makes the cut obvious — both need `height mod 48`, which
CSS cannot express, and the observed case is exactly the one where the
cut already lands on a row boundary.
The curve is steep rather than linear because the rows under it stay
live: a scrim over a menu item is that item's text surface, so the
4.5:1 rule reaches it, and the light ramp is what makes that real.
A 48px linear scrim at 0.8 greyed the last label to 5.0:1; 32px already
down to a quarter strength at 14px measures 9.9:1 there and spends its
weight on the strip below it.
The test asserts the pair of attachments rather than the pixels, on
this file's existing grounds that no tier here renders like the device
— it fails on the pre-fix stylesheet with `expected 'scroll' to be
'local, scroll'`. The rendered result was measured in the harness and
is recorded in `.planning/NOTES.md`.
Closes#207
No tier here can reproduce the defect: this runner's Chromium and CI's
WebKit both have the Popover API, so the popup is top-layered and looks
perfectly correct, and a spec asserting "the menu is not clipped" would
pass on the broken build. So these assert the mechanism -- that the
surface is a native <dialog> at phone width -- which is the same move
queue-as-a-screen.spec.ts makes about containment, for the same reason.
The sweep is the more valuable half. A thirteenth menu written as a
bare <wa-popup> would work in every tier here and be clipped on the
device, so this reads every source file and fails on one outside a
three-file allowlist, each entry carrying why. It found two call sites
the by-hand conversion had missed.
Four of the six behavioural tests fail on the build before this change;
the two asserting the desktop popup cannot, because that behaviour was
already there.
Closes#60
logan