dtourolleandClaude Opus 5
69b12e327f
The generated panel opened with a special case:
if op.id == dr_pipeline::framing::ID { continue; }
and a paragraph explaining that framing's eight parameters are eight bad
controls — four crop edges you would have to type coordinates into, a "rotate"
slider running 0..3, two switches — so `GeometryPanel` presents them as the
gestures they are instead.
Every word of that is true, and none of it was the frontend's to know. It is a
fact about the operation, and ARCH §4.3a is explicit that a frontend deciding
things by *naming a stage* is the boundary being crossed: a second frontend
would have had to learn the same special case, and nothing in the capability
output said why it existed.
Framing now declares a `Presentation` preferring `WidgetKind::CropOverlay`,
with a demand of two-dimensional dragging and — deliberately — no precise
pointing, since FR-UI-7 grows the handles to the modality and a crop is
forgiving. The widget owns all eight parameters rather than only the rect: a
frontend taking this on takes the whole framing control surface, and leaving
rotation and the flips behind would scatter them into the generated panel
underneath a crop control that already exists.
The panel's rule is now general. `supported` answers whether a kind is
implemented *anywhere* — drawn in the panel like the tone curve, or hosted on
the canvas like the crop — and `is_on_canvas` settles which afterwards, so the
two cannot disagree about the same kind. Any stage preferring an on-canvas
widget is skipped, with nothing named. A frontend that implements neither still
gets the eight sliders: tedious, complete, and the guarantee the whole hint
mechanism rests on.
**The tests were asserting against the wrong thing.** `rows_of` was a
hand-written simulation of the row generator, complete with its own copy of the
framing skip, so the suite was checking a second implementation kept in step by
hand. It was not in step: giving framing a presentation changed the real panel
and the simulation disagreed, which is exactly how a green suite hides a
regression. It now calls `rows_from`, and `rows_of_unfiltered` is gone.
`framing_is_not_generated_as_sliders` survives but asserts by routing rather
than by counting — no row may carry framing's capability index — so it cannot
be satisfied by two miscounts cancelling out. Alongside it, an invented stage
preferring a widget this frontend lacks, falling back to one the canvas hosts,
must also be skipped: if that ever needs a name added to pass, the special case
has grown back.
Not included: moving the crop overlay's markup out of app.slint into
controls.slint. It is cosmetic next to the above and app.slint is in another
session's working set.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
DarkRoom
A cross-platform, non-destructive RAW photo editor for Linux and Android.
Status: early. v0.1 is a remote library viewer — see docs/milestone-v0.1.md.
Documentation
| Document | Contents |
|---|---|
| requirements.md | What the software must do — 122 numbered requirements |
| architecture.md | How it is built — crates, GPU pipeline, data model, sync |
| milestone-v0.1.md | The first buildable milestone |
Building
Desktop:
cargo run -p darkroom-desktop
Android (containerised toolchain, see docker/android):
./docker/android/build.sh cargo ndk -t arm64-v8a build --release
Current state
Working: workspace, GPU context and compute pass, adaptive Slint shell, Android cross-compilation of the core crates.
Not yet working: the zero-copy display path. The build currently uploads frames through the CPU, which is exactly what ARCH §6.1 forbids — measured at 96% of frame time at 4K. Replacing it is spike S1, the project's highest priority.
cargo run -p dr-gpu --example bench --features readback
reproduces that measurement.
Licence
GPL-3.0-or-later.