No Full Performance profile walked the backdrop (imagePlan) path: every
large-house fixture has plan_url null. So the #739 K1 double render -- a
warm 2.5D floor switch with a backdrop cleared the ready paper, inserted
the veil, probed the card background and rendered a second time -- was
invisible to CI by time and structurally; a temporary probe found it.
large-house-isometric-backdrop-v1 is the twin of large-house-isometric-v1
with the shipped f1.svg under a URL of its own on every floor
(plan_aspect 1, room geometry unchanged). The variant is derived in the
runner as plan-snap's is, so demo/fixtures and the bundle fingerprint do
not change. A first stable frame without the backdrop image fails the
sample. After the switchCycle window and its #735 guard, before forced
GC and outside every timed window, a probe makes six warm switches and
counts performUpdate passes until updateComplete resolves true: the K1
second pass starts after the first updateComplete resolves, so a count
taken right after the first await reads one on both sides.
evaluate.mjs rejects a candidate of this profile unless every switch took
one pass, or when the probe is missing; the base is reported, not judged
(v1.78.0 and dev before #739 take two). The budget is a copy of the
historical isometric budget under the new profile id. performance.yml
gains the isometric-backdrop matrix entry with exact-SHA comparison.
Witness: a tree with #739 reverted reads perSwitch 2 in every sample and
benchmark:compare against the branch report throws on the pass count;
v1.78.0 reads 2, the branch reads 1.
Issue: #743
User-Visible: no
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018qZfe7YS4rqEMKoVeS3GKd
Every large-house sample mounts a new card that has visited only floors 1
and 2 before the twelve-switch cycle, so the cycle's second step was always
the first visit to floor 3: 20 new clean-floor entries, and in 2.5D one Iso
geometry entry plus one structural build. In large-house-interaction-v1 the
editor series also moves the config epoch that keys the clean-floor cache,
so floor 1 was cold as well. That one cold step was about half of
switchCycleMs, which the README and the cycle comment describe as warmed
navigation, and a 35% warm regression drowned in it.
The runner now visits every fixture floor once in cycle order after the
settings dialog closes, outside every timed and Long Task window, and
returns to floor 2, so the cycle still starts with 2 -> 1. A guard snapshots
the hot caches and the 2.5D structural build counter around the window and
fails the sample when anything grew. Caches an older base lacks read as 0
and its null counter is not judged, so a v1.78.0 base still passes.
Budgets, hardMaxMs, metric names, the report schema, profiles and the
workflow are unchanged. Base and candidate are both measured by the
candidate runner, so the comparison is unaffected; the absolute
switchCycleMs level steps down, which the README now explains. A unit
anchor pins the warm-up position and the guard message.
Issue: #735
User-Visible: no
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018qZfe7YS4rqEMKoVeS3GKd
The isometric-stage3-dense-v1 runner still demanded at least one bounded
#651 nudge. Since #713 every raised device tile and lock badge is lifted by
the one shared wall-top rise and carries data-hp-iso-nudged="false", so the
Full Performance profile failed its input contract before any timing.
The contract is inverted: a single nudged raised root now fails the sample,
matching the golden requireOneRise preflight. The performance README states
the current contract, and the #570 runner-contract unit pins the new failure
text.
Issue: #719
User-Visible: no
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018qZfe7YS4rqEMKoVeS3GKd
`release-zip.yml` выкладывал `houseplan.zip` в ту же секунду, когда релиз
становился публичным — до Validate, Full Performance и E2E; `release.yml`
параллельно пересобирал `houseplan-card.js`, а E2E требовал публичного ZIP,
чтобы вообще начаться. Публикаторов было четыре, порядок — ни одного.
Теперь публикатор стабильных один — `release.yml`: закрепить SHA → релиз в
черновике (опубликованный руками немедленно возвращается в черновик) → гейты
на SHA (трейлер `Release: <tag>`, контракт `--stable`, Validate, Full
Performance, E2E на коммите-кандидате через tarball codeload) → одна сборка,
`git archive` ZIP из того же дерева, `SHA256SUMS` → загрузка в черновик →
публикация → скачать публичное и сверить с паспортом → анонс. Dispatch на
публичный тег — ремонт: догружается только недостающее, расходящийся хеш —
отказ. Беты кладут тот же паспорт; локальный публикатор больше не ждёт
републикаторов — их нет.
- `.github/workflows/release-zip.yml` удалён
- `scripts/release-assets.mjs` — паспорт ассетов (`sums`/`check`), чистые
функции под юнитами
- `scripts/e2e-gate.mjs --ref=<sha>` — под тестом кандидат, `--tag` только
для выбора `upgrade_from`
- `scripts/release-contract.mjs --stable`
- мутанты: независимый публикатор, снятая зависимость от гейта, релиз без
возврата в черновик, `--clobber` в ремонте, E2E на теге, слепой паспорт
Issue: #540
User-Visible: no
Классификация changes вынесена в scripts/classify-changes.mjs (выходы
perf_iso/perf_interaction, fallback --all). performance_smoke добавляет
large-house-isometric-v1 при правке src/iso-* и large-house-interaction-v1
при правке живого пути, по 3 образца против hardMaxMs полных профилей
(budgets-*-smoke.json). Набор профилей входит в ключ reuse. PROCESS.md §8.
Issue: #473
User-Visible: no
github.event.before dies with a force-push, and the merge-base fallback then
guessed a diff range: on issue/333 it reported two review-doc files while the
real diff touched custom_components/** — frontend and backend jobs silently
skipped and the run stayed success, the exact #171/#207 class of silent pass
that nearly hid a genuine backend regression from code review.
The classifier now distinguishes the two fallback cases instead of merging
them: a ZERO before is a genuinely new branch and keeps the merge-base
range; a NON-ZERO before that no longer exists is a rewritten history, and
the range is not provable — frontend/backend/integration all go true, with
a loud note in the step summary. A force-push is rare and almost always
follows a rebase, where the full run is what an honest signal costs.
The three branches of the decision are pinned by a workflow-contract unit
next to the existing performance-workflow contracts.
Issue: #347
User-Visible: no
