4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
dtourolle	84fade99ec	Put the developer docs under docs/dev and index the folder for users first ... docs/ had 26 developer documents flat beside the manual, and the two audiences are very differently sized: most readers want the manual and the gesture reference, a few want the register, the designs and the measurements. The manual and gestures.md stay at the top; everything for someone changing the code moves to docs/dev/, and the two documents that name their own successors — the v0.1 milestone and the UI-refinement plan — go to docs/dev/archive/ rather than being deleted, since both are still cited. docs/README.md is the index, users first. Every reference follows: code comments, Cargo manifests, the workflows, the pre-commit hook, the bench and traceability tools (which locate the repo root by docs/dev/requirements.md now), packaging, the Docker READMEs, CLAUDE.md, CONTRIBUTING.md and the README. The matrix links one level deeper and is regenerated. Links out of the moved documents into the tree gain a level; a link checker over every Markdown file finds none broken.	2026-09-20 21:16:03 +02:00
dtourolle	ed4460cb9c	Tag three requirements the code already meets ... R5 says in its own note that zoom_resolution.rs establishes it as a pixel equality; that file was tagged FR-DSP-5 alone. FR-DEV-19's three sub-clauses carry eighty-three tags between them while the parent had none; MaskLayer, which is the thing they edit, now carries it. And NFR-R3 — a crash in decode does not take down the application, the image is marked failed — is exactly what the decoder's panic guard and the face sweep's unreadable mark do, tagged FR-RAW-4 and NFR-SEC-1 and not the clause that asked for them.	2026-09-19 12:25:04 +02:00
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5	8202c05d9d	Format the zoom test the way the gate asks for it ... Whitespace only. `cargo fmt --check` is a required step and the FR-DSP-5 test arrived disagreeing with it — kept as its own commit so it can be skipped wholesale rather than read for a change that matters. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-27 19:20:23 +02:00
dtourolleandClaude Opus 5	772a69711d	Prove that zooming to 1:1 reads the source, and only then tag FR-DSP-5 ... FR-DSP-5 has been satisfied for some time and untagged. `Framing::view` shrinks the sampled region while the render target keeps its size, so a zoom raises the resolution the pipeline works at rather than magnifying pixels already drawn — there is no second full-resolution path because the zoom is that path. Tagging it on that basis alone is what §7 of the display spec warns against: traceability counts a requirement as covered when a comment names it, and checks nothing about the code under the tag. So the tag goes on tests instead, and the tests are built so that removing the behaviour breaks them. Both failure modes were checked by hand: deleting the view from `visible_rect` leaves the 1:1 render flat, and dropping only its offset leaves the render exactly inverted. The assertion message names both, since those are the two ways this can go wrong and the numbers alone do not say which. The fixture is one-pixel black-and-white stripes — the highest frequency an image can hold, and precisely what a proxy discards. A 1024 px source in a 128 px viewport reads source column `8x + 4` for every output column `x`, all the same parity, so the fit render comes out uniform; that is asserted first, because a 1:1 render showing detail proves nothing unless the proxy is known to carry none. What remains is an equality against the source bytes rather than a claim that something looks sharper. The third test takes the arbitrary zoom the requirement also names, and pins `RenderScale` beside the pixels: a zoom that moved the pixels but not the scale would sharpen at the wrong radius, which stays invisible until somebody compares a preview against an export. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-27 19:05:05 +02:00