Public Access
jaap-janandClaude Opus 5
359087f1ce
Two things v2 broke in the last commit, both found by reading resolved brushes rather than markup, and both the same mistake: Avalonia has no specificity, so the later declaration wins, and a rule that restated the base instead of excepting from it went in below the rules it was supposed to be underneath. Making a tab a pill gave it a Background of its own, which the flat tab it replaced never had. That one detail moved where the hover has to live. `Button.flat:pointerover` is declared far above and had been supplying it; the moment `Button.tab`'s template rule set a Background, it won, and every tab in the strip stopped answering the pointer. Silently — a tab that no longer lights is not a crash and not a layout change, and nothing in a suite that measures heights and reachability can see it. The `+` lost more than that. It sits below as an exception — no outline, because it is not one of the things being chosen between — and a `.tab` rule declared after it was overriding the exception itself. It drew as a filled, outlined pill identical to a tab, contradicting the comment directly above it. So the base pill and its hover come first now and the exceptions follow, which is the order the rest of this file already uses and the order the Border.rowmark note further down was written about. The `+` clears the fill as well as the border, because an exception to a rule that sets both has to say both. The titlebar's search box had the same shape of error in geometry rather than colour. The design draws it at exactly 380 and centred, and stating that as a Width on the inner Border is what made it wrong: the button around it is free to shrink when the account name or the vault chip beside it is long, and a Border that will not shrink with it arranges outside its own parent — over the name on one side and over the window buttons on the other. MaxWidth on a stretching button gives the same 380 whenever there is room and gives way when there is not. The regression test is the point of this commit rather than an afterthought. It is the only test in that suite that reads a brush, and the gap it fills is exactly the one these two went through: everything else measures rectangles. It hovers a tab through the real input path and asserts the fill changes, then asserts the `+` is neither filled like a tab nor outlined like one. Checked against the broken ordering before being kept — it fails there and passes here, which is the only thing that makes a regression test worth committing. Verified by the whole suite: 1310 tests over nineteen projects, none failing, the layout suite now 70 cases. Both heads build. Still nothing seen on a display. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AZE3u99BNt6LzgTC5jhbz2