MeshBay — read-only public mirror https://git.meshbay.org/meshbay.git/atom?h=0.8 2026-08-17T07:28:49Z 2026-08-17T07:28:49Z Christophe Besson cbesson@gmail.com 2026-08-17T07:28:49Z urn:sha1:af30a10b83366416c25eaacec0b4df77526d0924 Reported: on mobile you see only the right-hand edge of the panel, without the content. Measured, before anything was changed: 320 px viewport -> panel at -138..192, 138 px off the left 360 px -> -98..232 412 px -> -46..284 The panel is 330 px wide and anchored to the right edge of its button — but that button is not at the right edge of the screen, since the bell and the user menu come after it. What falls off is the left-hand side, which is where the file names are, so what stayed on screen was a strip of progress bars belonging to nothing. Narrowing it would not have helped: the overflow comes from where the right edge is pinned, not from the width. Below the existing 768 px breakpoint the panel is anchored to the viewport instead, full width on a phone and capped at 420 px on a tablet, where stretching two filenames across 750 px would be silly. Desktop keeps its 330 px against the button. The interesting part is how it was found. The responsive tests read numbers out of the stylesheet and said, in their own docstring, that a layout could not be measured because the suite had no browser. It has one now — Chrome, from the video work — so layout_probe.py renders the real stylesheet at a given width and returns rectangles. `width: 330px` was never the thing worth asserting on. An iframe carries the viewport, because a headless window will not go below about 500 px, and one browser measures every width: launching one per test put three minutes on the suite against twenty-six seconds for all of them. Checked that the new tests fail with the rule removed — three of them do — and that they pass with it back.