irisandClaude Opus 5
fd616361eb
Both faults needed a real conversation to see, so `app/debug-transcript.sh`
now puts one on the emulator: it copies a Claude Code transcript into /tmp,
gives an ai-server a HOME of its own so the import can only see the copy, and
enrols the app against it. The transcript itself never enters this repository
-- those files hold whatever was said, read and written in a session. Beside
it, `ai-server --delay MS` holds every response back, because a phone's
requests take tens to hundreds of milliseconds over the tunnel and several
faults live entirely in what the app does while one is outstanding.
**Scrolling up threw the reader back to the newest end, once.** `followTail`
is deliberately a remembered answer, rewritten only when a scroll settles, so
for the whole of a fling it still reports the newest end -- where the reader
was when they threw it. A page of history landing during that fling is a
change in the item count, and the correction written for an insertion at the
newest end fired for one at the oldest. Captured on the emulator:
scrolling=true atNewest=false followTail=true
history: START last=20 total=28
history: page of 80 events -> rows now 36
countChanged count=36 followTail=true scrolling=true
>>> scrollToItem(0) SNAP
It could happen only once, which is what made it look arbitrary rather than
mechanical: the snap settles the scroll at the newest end, so the next fling
gets far enough to settle away from it, and from then on `followTail` is
false. So the list is no longer moved while a scroll is running, which is a
rule of its own rather than a refinement of that condition -- and skipping
the correction outright is right rather than merely safe, because the count
can only grow at the newest end while the reader is already there, `record`
holding everything else until they come back.
**A page of history stalled the frame it appeared in.** Parsing is the
expensive half of drawing a reply and costs in proportion to what was
written: against this transcript one message took 51ms and several took
10-25ms, where the synthetic replies this was tuned on took 4.6ms. So each
page's replies are parsed on a background thread as the page arrives --
after the join, since a boundary falling through a reply leaves a message
made of both halves whose text has existed for no time at all, and warming
the page alone warmed the two halves and missed the one thing drawn. A row
with no answer waiting still parses inline: a row measured at nothing before
it is measured at its real height collapses the transcript above it. Misses
are not stored, so a reply still streaming cannot fill the map with copies
of itself on the way to being finished.
Measured over the same twelve flings: 13.5ms average per composed reply
before, 7us after, the remaining parse being one message at session open.
Verified with ui-trace at 1kHz: with a page landing mid-drag the suppression
fires and the row the reader is on moves monotonically down, 266 -> 1063,
with no step backwards; at rest 0 of 65 elements move. 86 server tests pass,
ktfmt/lint/clippy clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>