The floor on the art's height passed locally at 114 and failed in CI at
64. Both numbers are honest and neither is about this change: the e2e
app is long-lived, so a job staged by an earlier spec is still on
screen, and the volume control renders here where it does not on
Android. Both are chrome above and below the view, and both move the
leftover.
So the claim is stated as what the reflow does rather than as what it
measures -- in a row the art is bounded by the row's height and fills
it, where in a column it is the leftover after the names. That is the
mechanism behind 53px to 143px, and it fails on the old build with
"there is no row to fill". The device numbers stay on #51, which is the
only tier that can honestly produce them.
This is the second draft of that assertion to be thrown away; the first
compared the art against the column's leftover and passed on the defect,
because the subtraction goes negative exactly when the names are taller
than the art.
Also stops the arrangement wait from requiring the row to exist, so
reverting the component to check that these tests bite still produces
the crop measurements -- 263x39, 358x315, 300x36 -- rather than eight
timeouts. 5 of 8 fail on the build before this change.
Four of these eight fail on the build before the fix, with the numbers
the issue is about: 263x39 at 424x439, 358x315 at 390x700, 300x36 at
900x500, and no row at all below 500px. The fifth viewport, 412x869,
passes on both -- which is the boundary landing exactly where the
arithmetic says it should, since the leftover only exceeds the width
above ~843.
Three of them cannot fail on the old build and are said to be guards
rather than evidence: that the transport does not scroll off (the old
build shrank the art instead, so it did not scroll either), that a tall
phone keeps its column, and -- after a first draft that passed on the
defect because the subtraction went negative -- a floor on the art at
the device's own viewport instead of a comparison with a layout that is
no longer there.
The wait is on the arrangement rather than on a non-zero box: a
previous test leaves the other layout on screen and a stale column
satisfies "has a size" perfectly, which showed up as one test passing
alone and failing in file order.
What this tier cannot see is the device's engine. Nothing here depends
on Chrome 113 behaviour -- the sizing rules were chosen by measuring
that engine directly, and the numbers are on the issue.
logan