Scrolling is the one thing in these trees that reads the pixel length of its
box, and the one that hands its child a box longer than its own, so a warm
layout under it has to be rebuilt where the rest can be carried over. A
sixth of the nodes at each level is now a scroll over a subtree, on either
axis.
Four of a hundred seeds now grow nothing but wrappers, so `reshuffled`
returns early where there is no span to shuffle: a case with nothing to do
is not the same as a shuffle that had no effect, which is what the assertion
below it is for.
50 tests, and the ignored sweep over 100 seeds and eight scenarios, 800
comparisons.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Padding as a node, with each of the four sides its own number: a padding that
is the same all round hides anything that treats one edge differently from
another. Spans now hold two to four children, so a pattern of removals has
something to make a pattern out of.
Five ways of changing what a span holds, each a shape worth its own case
rather than one shuffle: every other child out, everything but the first out,
three on at once, the first out and three on, and one out of the middle with
one on the end. Each is applied to every third span, and the cold tree is
grown holding exactly what the warm one was left with.
Three spare leaves are grown beside every span whether they end up in it or
not, so a tree that leaves them out makes the same widgets in the same order
as one that puts them in -- otherwise the two trees' `ids` stop lining up at
the first difference and every comparison after it is against the wrong
widget. Attaching one moves it, since a widget belongs to one parent;
`upgrade` is for a weak handle that was never added, not a second share. The
detached children are held until the comparison is over for the same reason:
dropping the last share of one frees its id for the next widget to be given.
Each case asserts the tree actually changed before comparing, so a shuffle
that quietly did nothing fails rather than passes.
All of it agrees: 49 tests, and the ignored sweep over 100 seeds and eight
scenarios, 800 comparisons.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Two holes the random trees found, both of which kept a wrapping text shaped
for a width it no longer had.
**A region is a fraction of a slot's box, so an unchanged region is not an
unchanged box.** `try_reuse` compared regions, and a child drawn at
`UiRegion::FULL` of a slot whose box had just halved compared equal to
itself and was reused without being descended into. `ActiveData` now keeps
the pixel size of the box it drew against and the comparison is against
that, which is the question that was being asked all along and is right
through a slot change and an output resize alike.
**A size the parent learnt by drawing the child is an answer for that box
only.** The walk looking for what cannot survive a length change skipped a
child whose own box was a fixed width -- correctly, its box does not change
-- but that width was what the child reported when the span drew it in the
span's box, and the span's box did change. So a child whose size the widget
read is redrawn unless it declares an exact `size_hint` for the changed
axis, which is the one case the parent did not have to draw it to know.
The cost is that a size-reading container gives up its reuse when its box
changes length, which is every span, so `OnResize::Scale` now earns its
keep on moves and on subtrees whose sizes nobody read rather than on every
stretch. Correct first; `replace_cost` still measures the case the chain was
built for.
`tests/generated.rs` is what found both and what says they are fixed: 90 of
90 warm trees now land where a cold build does, against 83 before this
commit and 83 on `db1751f`. The ignored sweep agrees over 300 checks on 100
seeds.
`a_fixed_length_child_is_not_redrawn_when_the_box_around_it_grows` became
`a_declared_length_...`: the child now says its width, since a width the
span measured is not one it may keep.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
`iris::random` grows a seeded tree -- spans in every direction, stacks,
rects with varying opacity, text both wrapping and overflowing, a declared
size over half of it -- and `tests/generated.rs` grows each seed twice: once
and then mutated, once with the mutation built in. Every widget's box has to
match. `examples/random.rs` draws one, and `IRIS_SEED`/`IRIS_DEPTH` pick it.
It found the defect in the commit before this one immediately: a reuse that
marked a descendant for redraw escalated to that descendant's size reader,
which re-placed the child, which marked it again. `try_reuse` now asks
whether anything under the widget would have to be drawn again *before*
keeping the drawing, and drops the whole thing if so, which terminates
because it adds no marks.
It also found one older and larger than this branch, which
`a_wrapping_child_of_a_row_settles_somewhere_else_each_time` reproduces and
documents: a wrapping text on a span's own axis is shaped twice against two
different widths, so where it settles depends on how many passes it has had.
7 of 90 cases diverge on `db1751f` and 30 do here, because a placed child
reaches the second shaping more often. It is the same defect either way, and
it belongs where the two draws meet -- LAYOUT.md §4 -- not in the chain. The
six seeds the live tests use are ones that agree.
`forget_ref` goes with the subtree rewrite that used it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
iris-ai
