Merge branch 'main' into the group's move and its deletion question

Main took the group's EDIT and DELETE off the GROUPS heading while this branch
was adding a MOVE beside them, so the conflict was about the same six pixels
from both directions. Main's answer wins outright, and it is the better one for
the reason its own message gives: a button beside a heading has no card under a
pointer to mean, and had to work its subject out from the selection or from the
trail. Moving a group had that problem worst of all — the thing it takes with it
is everything on the shelf, and "which shelf" is not a question a button there
could answer plainly.

So the MOVE button is gone and the menu entry it was drawn beside is the whole
of it. That entry was already in this branch, above the separator DELETE sits
below, and it needed no change: the card menu selects whatever was right-clicked
before it runs anything, which is exactly the aiming a group move wants.

Three things went with the button. ShowsGroupActions, which main deleted because
hiding buttons was all it did, and which this branch had extended to hide them
for the move panel as well. CanMoveGroupTarget, which existed to answer whether
that button was worth drawing — CanMoveSelectedHost stays, because the phone
really does leave the host's MOVE out rather than offer a refusal, and a menu
whose entries came and went would be a menu whose items move. And the two test
assertions that read them, which were describing the button rather than the
behaviour; what they were guarding is that the two panels never share the
moment, and IsConfirmingGroupDeletion says that directly.

The move panel and the deletion question both keep their place under the
heading, which is where the buttons were and is now simply where that section
puts things. They still exclude each other, by disarming rather than by a
visibility flag: MoveGroup clears a pending deletion and DeleteGroup folds the
move panel away.

Manual checks 3.3 was rewritten by main for the menu and by this branch for the
tick, and now says both; 3.3a is new and walks a two-level shelf across a vault
boundary, which is the half of this feature no headless test can watch land.

tests/DodoSSH.Client.App.Tests/ShellFlowTests.cs

@@ -523,6 +523,90 @@ public sealed class ShellFlowTests : IAsyncLifetime
         vault.Status.ShouldContain("bad day");
     }
 
+    /// <summary>
+    /// The whole point of the push channel: a pass that did not wait for the minute.
+    /// </summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The timing is what makes this an assertion rather than a hope. The background timer is a full
+    /// minute and the wait below gives up in ten seconds, so a pull that arrives can only have been
+    /// caused by the notice — there is no interval at which the timer could have produced it.
+    /// </para>
+    /// <para>
+    /// The vault id in the notice is arbitrary, and deliberately so: a pass synchronises every vault
+    /// this session can reach, so the loop reads the notice as "there is something to fetch" and never
+    /// as "fetch this one". A test that seeded a real id would imply a targeting this does not do.
+    /// </para>
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task APushedNotice_SynchronisesWithoutWaitingForTheTimer()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        // The unlock starts the loop, whose first act is a pass; waited out so the count below is a
+        // baseline rather than a race with it.
+        await EventuallyAsync(
+            () => server.PullCount > 0,
+            "the pass on open should have run");
+
+        var before = server.PullCount;
+
+        server.Notices.Push(Guid.CreateVersion7());
+
+        await EventuallyAsync(
+            () => server.PullCount > before,
+            "a notice should have woken the loop long before the one-minute timer");
+    }
+
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// The half that is easy to get wrong. The loop selects between two waits, and both have to survive
+    /// losing: <c>PeriodicTimer</c> throws if a second wait is started while one is outstanding, and an
+    /// abandoned channel read stays registered and swallows the next notice written. Either defect
+    /// leaves the first notice working and every one after it silently lost, which is why one notice is
+    /// not enough to prove this.
+    /// </remarks>
+    [Fact]
+    public async Task NoticesKeepWakingTheLoop_NotJustTheFirst()
+    {
+        await UnlockedAsync();
+
+        await EventuallyAsync(() => server.PullCount > 0, "the pass on open should have run");
+
+        for (var round = 1; round <= 3; round++)
+        {
+            var before = server.PullCount;
+
+            server.Notices.Push(Guid.CreateVersion7());
+
+            await EventuallyAsync(
+                () => server.PullCount > before,
+                $"notice {round} should have woken the loop as the first one did");
+        }
+    }
+
+    /// <summary>Waits for something a background loop is expected to do, or fails saying what.</summary>
+    /// <remarks>
+    /// Polled rather than signalled because the thing under test is a loop nobody hands a completion
+    /// source to. The bound is generous — this is not measuring latency, only proving that the timer
+    /// cannot be what caused the result.
+    /// </remarks>
+    private static async Task EventuallyAsync(Func<bool> condition, string because)
+    {
+        var deadline = TimeProvider.System.GetUtcNow().AddSeconds(10);
+
+        while (TimeProvider.System.GetUtcNow() < deadline)
+        {
+            if (condition())
+            {
+                return;
+            }
+
+            await Task.Delay(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(20), Token);
+        }
+
+        throw new ShouldAssertException(because);
+    }
+
     /// <remarks>
     /// <para>
     /// The page's own <c>term.focus()</c> focuses the textarea inside the document, which does nothing